Continuous Knowledge Metabolism: Generating Scientific Hypotheses from Evolving Literature
For researchers in scientific discovery and NLP, this work introduces a framework for hypothesis generation from evolving literature, but the findings are incremental over existing batch methods.
Continuous Knowledge Metabolism (CKM) processes scientific literature incrementally to generate hypotheses, with CKM-Lite achieving 92% token reduction while improving hit rate by 2.8% and hypothesis yield by 3.6 over batch processing. CKM-Full reveals a quality-coverage trade-off: change-aware instrumentation boosts novelty (Cohen's d=3.46) but reduces predictive coverage.
Scientific hypothesis generation requires tracking how knowledge evolves, not just what is currently known. We introduce Continuous Knowledge Metabolism (CKM), a framework that processes scientific literature through sliding time windows and incrementally updates a structured knowledge base as new findings arrive. We present CKM-Lite, an efficient variant that achieves strong predictive coverage through incremental accumulation, outperforming batch processing on hit rate (+2.8%, p=0.006), hypothesis yield (+3.6, p<0.001), and best-match alignment (+0.43, p<0.001) while reducing token cost by 92%. To understand what drives these differences, we develop CKM-Full, an instrumented variant that categorizes each new finding as novel, confirming, or contradicting, detects knowledge change signals, and conditions hypothesis generation on the full evolution trajectory. Analyzing 892 hypotheses generated by CKM-Full across 50 research topics, alongside parallel runs of the other variants, we report four empirical observations: (1) incremental processing outperforms batch baseline across predictive and efficiency metrics; (2) change-aware instrumentation is associated with higher LLM-judged novelty (Cohen's d=3.46) but lower predictive coverage, revealing a quality-coverage trade-off; (3) a field's trajectory stability is associated with hypothesis success (r=-0.28, p=0.051), suggesting boundary conditions for literature-based prediction; (4) knowledge convergence signals are associated with nearly 5x higher hit rate than contradiction signals, pointing to differential predictability across change types. These findings suggest that the character of generated hypotheses is shaped not only by how much literature is processed, but also by how it is processed. They further indicate that evaluation frameworks must account for the quality-coverage trade-off rather than optimize for a single metric.