Socratic agents for autonomous scientific discovery in high-dimensional physical systems
Open accessAbstract
The automation of scientific discovery has reached an inflection point. While AI systems now operate instruments, optimize parameters and generate hypotheses, most remain procedural: they execute workflows fixed by human designers. True autonomous science demands epistemic autonomy--the capacity to construct, challenge and revise physical explanations in response to evidence. Here we introduce AHOIS, a multi-agent AI scientist that embeds Socratic midwifery into closed-loop experimentation. A physics-critic agent interrogates hypotheses through causal questioning, constraint checking, counterexample generation and falsification-criteria formulation. We evaluate AHOIS on a real multimode-fibre optical platform, a high-dimensional system with complex wave transformations, indirect detection, environmental drift and multi-modal acquisition. Without prior encoding schemes, classifiers or speckle models, the system autonomously proposed and validated a random-interference encoding hypothesis, discovered task-adaptive sparse-measurement strategies, diagnosed distinct failure modes (encoding instability, fluorescence contamination and detector noise) and translated a published imaging protocol into an executable workflow on a non-original configuration. The discovered encoding yielded 16x16 measurements with effective rank 56.9 and classification accuracies of 76.97% on MNIST and 83.17% on Fashion-MNIST. Ablations show that Socratic interrogation improves physical consistency, hypothesis completeness, uncertainty calibration and experimental-plan validity. These results establish a route from workflow automation towards evidence-grounded, self-correcting autonomous discovery in complex physical environments.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The AI-scientist theme has fragmented into dozens of domain-specific descendants.
“the theme has since fragmented into dozens of domain-specific descendants”
From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [173]
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops
Chen, M., Wang, L., & Qu, B. (2026) · arXiv
“…researcher navigating literature and long-horizon proofs [167], Socratic agents pursuing “epistemic autonomy” in high-dimensional physics [168], evolving multi-agent scientists that adapt their own pipelines from accumulated history [169, 170], and infrastructure for coordinating fleets…”
- Authors
- Zeng, X., Liu, P., Zang, Y., Shen, Y., Yu, F., Yu, C., Liu, M., & Du, Y.
- Affiliations
- Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
- University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
- Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital (CN)
- Tongji University (CN)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2606.26722
- OpenAlex
- W7166151766
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (LHZY24F030002)
- Tianjin University (Pilab2401)
- University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
- Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province (LHZY24F030002)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Acoustics and Ultrasonics › Random lasers and scattering media
- Keywords
- autonomous scientific discovery, multi-agent AI, epistemic autonomy, hypothesis falsification, counterexample generation, closed-loop experimentation, speckle imaging, failure mode identification, uncertainty calibration
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review