# Who Owns Creativity and Who Does the Work? Trade-offs in LLM-Supported Research Ideation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.12152 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.12152/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Web, search, and research agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- First posted on arXiv 17 Jan 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Web, search, and research agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/web-search-and-research-agents/)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [RELISH: LLM REgression with a Latent Iterative State Head](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.01206/) (2026)
- [Style Wins, Substance Loses: A Diagnosis of LLM-as-Judge in Idea Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.01666/) (2026)
- [Metacognition in LLMs: Foundations, Progress, and Opportunities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.11881/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

LLM-based agents offer new potential to accelerate science and reshape research work. However, the quality of researcher contributions can vary significantly depending on human ability to steer agent behaviors. How can we best use these tools to augment scientific creativity without undermining aspects of contribution and ownership that drive research? To investigate this, we developed an agentic research ideation system integrating three roles -- Ideator, Writer, and Evaluator -- across three control levels -- Low, Medium, and Intensive. Our mixed-methods study with 54 researchers suggests three key findings in how LLM-based agents reshape scientific creativity: 1) perceived creativity support does not simply increase linearly with greater control; 2) human effort shifts from ideating to verifying ideas; and 3) ownership becomes a negotiated outcome between human and AI. Our findings suggest that LLM agent design should emphasize researcher empowerment, fostering a sense of ownership over strong ideas rather than reducing researchers to operating an automated AI-driven process.