hiw3c 日报精选
arXiv cs.AI/CL/LG 网页快照

对比性发现:开放式科学发现优于竞争性解释

原文标题 · Contrastive Discovery: Open-Ended Scientific Discovery over Competing Explanations

作者: Ziang Liu, James J. Kim, Yijia Dai | LLM智能体越来越多地被用于开放式、数据驱动的科学发现中,然而其中大多数都逐点评估假设,仅针对其对立假设$\neg h$来检验经验性命题$h$。当证据否定$h$时,智能体会意识到一种解释不太可能成立,但无法确定该证据支持的是哪种替代解释。为恢复该替代解释,我们引入对比式发现,该方法

来源:arXiv cs.AI/CL/LG · arxiv.org

正文为英文,可一键机器翻译(仅首次需要等待)

Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence

Title: Contrastive Discovery: Open-Ended Scientific Discovery over Competing Explanations

Abstract: LLM agents are increasingly used for open-ended, data-driven scientific discovery, yet most of them evaluate hypotheses pointwise, testing an empirical claim $h$ only against its complement $\neg h$. When evidence rejects $h$, the agent learns that one explanation is unlikely but not which alternative the evidence supports. To recover that alternative, we introduce Contrastive Discovery, which replaces the single hypothesis with a contrast set, a scientific question paired with mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive competing explanations. Each experiment is scored by how its evidence redistributes belief across the set, and the question is resolved when belief concentrates on one explanation. Because contrast sets change only the unit an agent proposes and scores, an existing agent can use them to re-evaluate evidence it has already collected or to guide its search. Across six domains, $89\%$ of the pointwise candidates with the largest belief shifts are rejections. On the same evidence, contrast sets resolve $73\%$ of these candidates to a specific alternative. When contrast sets guide search, the agent resolves $67\%$ more questions than pointwise surprisal under the same experiment budget. In a blinded study, $38$ human experts chose the same explanation on $78\%$ of resolved questions and on $82\%$ of questions where the pointwise agent rejected its hypothesis and stopped. Together, these results support explicit competing explanations as a way for discovery agents to resolve more scientific questions from the same evidence and validation budget.

Submission history

Access Paper:

Additional Features

Current browse context:

References & Citations

BibTeX formatted citation

Bookmark

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

Demos

Recommenders and Search Tools

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .