Abstract
Most symbolic regression methods optimize candidate equations, but improving an equation's fit does not establish whether its underlying scientific conjecture should be retained, revised, or rejected. A conjecture may admit multiple mathematical realizations, and similarly accurate equations may imply different explanations. This motivates a shift from refining individual expressions to developing and testing the conjectures that guide them. We introduce SCOPE, a framework that sustains multiple conjecture-driven research trajectories. Multiple scientist agents independently pursue conjectures through equation modeling, question formulation, and active experimentation, then exchange evidence to revise their conjectures and research directions. Their findings are consolidated into a scientific report linking models, conclusions, and evidence. Existing equation-discovery benchmarks primarily assess recovered expressions, leaving the evidence and scientific conclusions established through the investigation underexamined. We therefore introduce ClosureBench, an interactive benchmark of 60 closure-discovery tasks across five scientific domains. ClosureBench focuses on closure-discovery tasks to give equation discovery a concrete scientific purpose. Each task embeds an unknown algebraic relation in a known PDE system, where agents control experimental conditions in OpenFOAM to acquire new data for equation discovery. Beyond equation accuracy, ClosureBench proposes three metrics to evaluate the discovery process: evidence faithfulness, mechanism insight, and experimental effectiveness. Compared with diverse baselines, SCOPE achieves higher equation accuracy on both ClosureBench and a real-world scientific discovery case, while producing more accurate, reliable, and effective scientific discoveries.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.18938
