Hypothesis

Recent studies reveal striking representational alignment between artificial neural networks (ANNs) and biological brains, leading to proposals that all sufficiently capable systems converge on universal representations of reality. Here, we argue that this claim of Universality is premature. We introduce the Umwelt Representation Hypothesis (URH), proposing that alignment arises not from convergence toward a single global optimum, but from overlap in ecological constraints under which systems develop. We review empirical evidence showing that representational differences between species, individuals, and ANNs are systematic and adaptive, which is difficult to reconcile with Universality. Finally, we reframe ANN model comparison as a method for mapping clusters of alignment in ecological constraint space rather than searching for a single optimal world model.

Current knowledge graph (KG) construction methods are confirmatory, focusing on recovering known relationships rather than identifying novel or context-dependent nodes. This paper proposes a phenotype-driven and evidence-governed framework that shifts the paradigm toward structured hypothesis discovery and controlled KG expansion. The approach integrates graph neural networks (GNNs) for phenotype discovery, causal inference, probabilistic reasoning and large language models (LLMs) for hypothesis generation and claim extraction within a unified pipeline. The framework prioritizes relationships that are both structurally supported by data and underexplored in the literature. KG expansion is formulated as a multi-objective optimization problem, where candidate claims are jointly evaluated in terms of relevance, structural validation and novelty. Pareto-optimal selection enables the identification of non-dominated claims that balance confirmation and discovery, avoiding trivial or redundant knowledge inclusion. Experiments on heterogeneous population datasets demonstrate that the proposed framework produces more interpretable phenotypes, reveals context-dependent causal structures and generates high-quality claims that align with both data and scientific evidence. Compared to rule-based and LLM-only baselines, the method achieves the best trade-off across plausibility, novelty, validation and relevance. In retrieval-augmented settings, it significantly improves performance (Recall@5=0.98) while reducing hallucination rates (0.05), highlighting its effectiveness in grounding LLM outputs.

Identifying promising research directions in fast-moving subareas is one of the most cognitively expensive tasks in modern AI research. Existing LLM-driven scientific discovery systems are typically limited to one-shot prompting on static literature snapshots and are validated only against contemporary judges such as human reviewers, agent peer review, wet-lab assays, or self-evaluation, leaving open whether they can anticipate future trends. We present Continuous Knowledge Metabolism (CKM), an AI workflow for hypothesis generation with three key capabilities: (i) continuous literature metabolism via sliding windows that maintain an evolving knowledge state; (ii) predictive evaluation, which grades hypotheses against papers published after the generation window; and (iii) practitioner-grade failure detection that diagnoses workflow failure modes from its outputs. On a 50-topic machine learning benchmark, CKM-Lite produces at least one validated hypothesis on 72% of topics (36 out of 50), more than doubling a one-shot baseline (30%) at approximately 3 dollars per topic and achieving 91% lower token cost. Validated hypotheses precede their matched papers by an average of 404 days (55 hits across 36 topics; median 399 days, range 66-757 days). Broadly, predictive validation against future literature provides a falsifiable, low-cost alternative to contemporary-judge evaluation protocols and can be applied wherever a corpus has dated publication records.

The Platonic Representation Hypothesis suggests that representations from neural networks are converging to a common statistical model of reality. We show that the existing metrics used to measure representational similarity are confounded by network scale: increasing model depth or width can systematically inflate representational similarity scores. To correct these effects, we introduce a permutation-based null-calibration framework that transforms any representational similarity metric into a calibrated score with statistical guarantees. We revisit the Platonic Representation Hypothesis with our calibration framework, which reveals a nuanced picture: the apparent convergence reported by global spectral measures largely disappears after calibration, while local neighborhood similarity, but not local distances, retains significant agreement across different modalities. Based on these findings, we propose the Aristotelian Representation Hypothesis: representations in neural networks are converging to shared local neighborhood relationships.

We inspect the deductive connection between the neural scaling law and Zipf's law -- two statements discussed in machine learning and quantitative linguistics. The neural scaling law describes how the cross entropy rate of a foundation model -- such as a large language model -- changes with respect to the amount of training tokens, parameters, and compute. By contrast, Zipf's law posits that the distribution of tokens exhibits a power law tail. Whereas similar claims have been made in more specific settings, we show that the neural scaling law is a consequence of Zipf's law under certain broad assumptions that we reveal systematically. The derivation steps are as follows: We derive Heaps' law on the vocabulary growth from Zipf's law, Hilberg's hypothesis on the entropy scaling from Heaps' law, and the neural scaling from Hilberg's hypothesis. We illustrate these inference steps by a toy example of the Santa Fe process that satisfies all four statistical laws.

Fuzzing frameworks like syzkaller have uncovered thousands of Linux kernel crashes, many of which are critical and security-sensitive. However, the ability to rapidly repair these crashes has not kept pace, particularly given the complexity and low-level nature of kernel code. Predominantly targeting user-space applications, existing LLM-based program repair techniques are not tailored to the unique challenges posed by kernel fuzz bugs-such as the absence of natural language bug reports, lack of exhaustive test oracles, and highly specialized crash artifacts. Thus, in this work, we first identify the prevalent bottlenecks that generic agents struggle with in complex systems such as the Linux kernel. Guided by these findings, we then build kAgent, a workflow-based agent inspired by how kernel developers diagnose and fix bugs, and kGym++, the co-designed toolstack supporting kAgent's requests. kAgent inspects relevant execution logs, generates execution-grounded natural language hypotheses, synthesizes candidate patches, validates patches through crash reproduction, and iteratively refines its reasoning. We ablate these agentic system features in kAgent and quantitatively analyze their contributions to the overall performance. We also report our experience on building agents for kernel crash repair. Although derived from this work on Linux, we note that our experience applies broadly to fuzzing-discovered bugs in complex systems software. We evaluate kAgent on kBenchSyz and show that it can repair up to 54.5% of crashes without localization and 65% with correct file hints. We also show kAgent's generalization on a few wild Syzkaller bugs, and how different patch types offer varying utility to developers who debug complex system software.

We discuss the nature of chatbots as conversation partners in problem-solving conversations. What can chatbots do and what can't they do? Our analysis draws on insights from Aggregation Dynamics, Cognitive Linguistics, Neuropsychology and Psychology. We establish that chatbots are multifaceted and composite systems. Our argument focuses on basic chatbots in the hope of thereby making statements about the core functionality of more advanced chatbots. Basic chatbots are assumed to consist of a Large Language Model (LLM) with a simple interface. The main results of our analysis are: a description of human imagination, understanding and thinking based on so-called metaphorical problem propagations; that the texts in text datasets used for training LLMs have specific characteristics and that these texts only partially imitate human thinking and understanding; that the LLM training process encodes artificial metaphorical problem propagations into an LLM from these text datasets. Our conclusions are that a basic chatbot cannot be a thinking partner capable of matching the cognitive flexibility of humans, and that further development of LLMs will not lead to this either. But chatbots exist, they are being used on a massive scale, by both individuals and organisations. It is therefore socially and politically important to understand them. Our article aims to contribute to the discussion on the functioning, benefits and drawbacks of chatbots. Cognitive Linguistics shows how the use of metaphor is an expression of our thinking. Aggregation Dynamics, is an attempt at a comprehensive systems theory. We believe that the concept of metaphorical problem propagation could provide an interesting addition for both. Chatbots a solution? For what?