Artificial Intelligence and Scientific Discovery: A Model of Prioritized Search
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We model a key step in the innovation process, hypothesis generation, as the making of predictions over a vast combinatorial space.Traditionally, scientists and innovators use theory or intuition to guide their search.Increasingly, however, they use artificial intelligence (AI) instead.We model innovation as resulting from sequential search over a combinatorial design space, where the prioritization of costly tests is achieved using a predictive model.We represent the ranked output of the predictive model in the form of a hazard function.We then use discrete survival analysis to obtain the main innovation outcomes of interest -the probability of innovation, expected search duration, and expected profit.We describe conditions under which shifting from the traditional method of hypothesis generation, using theory or intuition, to instead using AI that generates higher fidelity predictions, results in a higher likelihood of successful innovation, shorter search durations, and higher expected profits.We then explore the complementarity between hypothesis generation and hypothesis testing; potential gains from AI may not be realized without significant investment in testing capacity.We discuss the policy implications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".