ShadowMiner v1 - An Experience Report on Implementing and Measuring a Problem-and-Hypothesis Discovery Engine

Current AI-powered research systems adopt a direct search-then-summarize paradigm that treats hypotheses as end products of scientific discovery. We argue this leaves a critical gap: hypotheses can serve a far more powerful role as organizational instruments that structure the research process itself. We propose the Hypothesis-Driven Deep Research (HDRI) methodology - the first framework using hypotheses to organize general-purpose deep research across arbitrary domains, rather than merely validating claims within specific domains. This transforms research from reactive information retrieval into proactive, verifiable, and iterative knowledge discovery. HDRI is formalized with six core principles and an eight-stage pipeline. A central innovation is the gap-driven iterative research mechanism - a closed-loop quality assurance system that automatically identifies informational and logical gaps, triggering targeted supplementary investigation. We further introduce a fact reasoning framework with traceable reasoning chains and quantified confidence propagation, a subject locking mechanism to prevent entity confusion, and a multi-dimensional quality assessment scheme. The methodology is realized in the INFOMINER system. Experiments demonstrate improvements of 22.4% in fact density, 90% subject matching accuracy, 0.92 multi-source verification confidence, and 14% completeness gain from gap-driven supplementation. Five case studies validate its practical applicability, achieving an average quality rating of 4.46/5.0.

Recent efforts toward fully automated AI scientists have demonstrated that language-model agents can generate hypotheses, execute experiments, and draft scientific manuscripts. However, during the early stages of research, when research problems are formulated, these AI scientists often rely heavily on proprietary frontier models. Their proposals are shaped by opaque parametric knowledge and by literature searches conditioned on the proposals themselves. Such knowledge is effectively a black box, and this dependence makes the evidential basis and validity of generated research problems difficult to audit and leaves the process vulnerable to model-specific hallucinations and biases. Furthermore, if proprietary research materials are transmitted to external APIs, the use of these models creates confidentiality, privacy, and data-governance concerns. We introduce the Structural Gap Hypothesis Agent (SGHA), a fully automated, corpus-first research-problem discovery system that runs entirely on a local LLM. SGHA structures a scientific literature corpus into evidence-linked paper objects and a typed evidence graph, detects unresolved structural patterns across papers, screens candidate gaps before formulation, and produces traceable research-problem families. In particular, it is able to output assumptions, objectives, success criteria, and remaining ambiguities. All LLM-based components of SGHA are executed using a locally served open-weight 9B language model, without requiring proprietary frontier-model APIs. We compare SGHA with the AI Scientist-v2 idea formulation module in five machine-learning domains. Our results suggest that explicit corpus structure and evidence-constrained reasoning can support promising, inspectable research-problem formulation without relying on frontier models during generation or verification.

Forecasts of explosive AI progress hinge on AI agents automating AI research. But evidence on whether agents can carry out open-ended AI research is thin. Current evaluations either test agents on narrow, verifiable tasks, which excludes open-ended research, or submit AI-generated papers to blind peer review, which is overstretched, stochastic, and suffers from poor review quality. We introduce a third way to measure progress towards AI R&D automation. An agent takes on the central, open-ended research question of a high-quality unpublished paper, and the paper's original authors grade its output. We call these shadow evaluations. We ran shadow evaluations on two unpublished NeurIPS 2026 submissions, giving frontier agents six days and thousands of dollars of compute. The agents completed all of the engineering without human help, yet could not make substantial progress towards answering the research questions. As a result, both papers were unambiguously rejected by the authors. We identify five recurring failure modes: poor judgment about the bar for publishable research, uncreative responses to shortcomings in the research design, ineffective backtracking from dead ends, poor resource awareness, and instruction drift. A robustness check with a second model and scaffold reproduced these failures. We release the expert reviews, survey responses, agent repositories, and logs. Our results provide early evidence that today's agents can do the engineering of AI research, but struggle with critical parts of the research lifecycle.