arXiv:2607.14118v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can generate research ideas that appear novel to expert reviewers, but recent work also shows that such ideas often lack diversity, are difficult for LLMs to evaluate reliably, and may fail to translate into strong executed projects. This paper evaluates a controlled proxy benchmark for a pre-execution scaffolding problem: given a noisy pool of LLM-generated research ideas, how should a system allocate limited refinement effort to construct a stronger, more diverse, more execution-aware portfolio for human researchers under a fixed rubric? We introduce Budgeted Subset Refinement, a family of strategies that refine only a selected subset of candidates rather than refining all candidates uniformly. In a unified shared-candidate-pool evaluation across 10 random seeds and 10 research-ideation environments, raw generation and reranking alone produce no research-strong nonduplicate ideas under the benchmark rubric, while refinement is necessary for strong proxy-rated portfolios. Uniform refinement produces strong individual ideas but is not the best portfolio-level allocation of compute. Random-k refinement is a strong low-cost baseline, while diversity-aware MMR-k refinement gives the best overall proxy tradeoff: the highest research-strong nonduplicate yield, the lowest duplicate rate among successful methods, and the best cost per research-strong nonduplicate idea. A blinded external-judge robustness check on a balanced 72-item sample supports the broad refinement effect across independent model families, while showing that per-item rankings among refined strategies vary by judge. These results suggest that LLM research ideation systems should be evaluated not only as idea generators, but as budgeted support-allocation systems. The claims are scoped to proxy-rated portfolio quality and do not substitute for expert review or execution-grounded validation.
Information-Theoretic Limits of Reliability and Scaling in Language Models