Towards Diverse Scientific Hypothesis Search with Large Language Models

Scientific discovery is an inherently creative and uncertain process, requiring reasoning beyond the recall of known knowledge. While many benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate large language model (LLM) performance on deep research tasks via multi-hop retrieval, their innovative reasoning abilities essential for true scientific discovery remain largely untested. We introduce a benchmark framework for evaluating model performance in scientific discovery and reasoning, building up from a raw problem to the classical null hypothesis test. In our framework, models initially receive only the topic and research question from a recent paper, with technical details progressively revealed. At each stage of information disclosure, the model is tasked with generating hypotheses that address the research question, which is compared with the conclusions from the original paper and evaluated via automated semantic similarity of constituent atomic claims. This progressive evaluation of semantic divergence from ground-truth conclusions enables assessment of a model's innovativeness (under minimal information) to grounded reasoning capabilities (under full experimental details), both critical for using LLMs for scientific discovery purposes. Our framework provides a foundation for systematically evaluating scientific reasoning and discovery capabilities in LLMs, crucial for advancing the development of next-generation AI scientist/co-scientist systems. Specifically, here we evaluate GPT-5, GPT-5.4, Gemini 2.5 pro, and Gemini 3.1 pro preview across 45 papers spanning bioactive materials, mechanical materials, and nanomaterials. We find that GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 pro outperform their previous generation counterparts as expected, and GPT-5.4 in particular maintains 0.7 F1 score alignment with ground truth conclusions even under minimal context.

Open-ended scientific discovery with large language models (LLMs) increasingly operates as a long-horizon loop of hypothesis search and verification, where a reward signal guides which hypotheses to test next. A notable recent example is AutoDiscovery, which uses "Bayesian surprise" - the belief shift an LLM undergoes after observing evidence for a hypothesis - as both a discovery metric and a reward for search. We first observe that AutoDiscovery treats surprisal as a static quantity, while surprisal in human reasoning is non-stationary - it is defined relative to beliefs that evolve with experience, a prerequisite for continual scientific discovery. We address this mismatch with evidence-informed LLM beliefs: priors updated with evidence from previous hypotheses to compute non-stationary surprisal for new hypotheses. We compare in-context belief-updating mechanisms and find that embedding-based retrieval-augmented generation over prior discoveries best anticipates eventual posteriors, identifying 37.5% of static surprisals as spurious. We then modify search to avoid these spurious rewards and prioritize hypotheses that remain surprising under non-stationary beliefs. Concretely, we introduce two complementary changes to the original search procedure: belief-update filtering and diversity maximization. Across five discovery domains, our method increases accumulated non-stationary surprisal by 30.62% on average compared to the original search procedure, demonstrating that continual scientific discovery with LLMs requires not only better belief measurement but also search procedures that avoid redundancy and encourage diversity.

Scientific agents contribute to hypothesis discovery by synthesizing evidence, assessing proposals, and developing new explanations. Recent systems combine scientific agents with evolutionary search through critique, comparison, and revision. However, how different forms of agent collaboration affect hypothesis quality remains an open question. Answering this question requires separating the effects of agents' scientific capabilities from those of their collaboration. A framework must therefore preserve agents' scientific roles and support rules for combining, revising, and retaining hypotheses. Building on this view, we introduce HypoEvolve, which makes collaboration explicit through successive updates to a hypothesis population. Specifically, we propose a generational genetic algorithm to coordinate specialized large language model (LLM) agents that integrate mechanistic arguments, reconsider assumptions, and assess evidence and testability. Each generation specifies how scientific judgments and new proposals reshape the population, making collaboration effects on hypothesis quality directly testable. Moreover, we design our evaluation around scientifically meaningful hypotheses that explain how a proposed intervention could work. Drug repurposing links these explanations to target-level biological claims assessed against external evidence. Specifically, we adapt DepMap and Open Targets into complementary external measures grounded in experimental, genetic, and clinical evidence. Across 34 cancer types, HypoEvolve achieves the highest scores against six baselines on both measures. DepMap selectivity reaches 0.171, versus 0.115 for the strongest baseline. Gains over single-pass generation also generalize to held-out cancer types. HypoEvolve advances a vision of autonomous science in which AI research teams achieve a capacity for discovery beyond that of individual models.