Continuous Knowledge Metabolism: Generating Scientific Hypotheses from Evolving Literature

TL;DR

This paper introduces Continuous Knowledge Metabolism (CKM), a framework for evolving literature analysis that improves scientific hypothesis generation by incrementally updating knowledge bases and analyzing knowledge change signals.

Contribution

The paper presents CKM and its variants, CKM-Lite and CKM-Full, demonstrating improved hypothesis prediction, efficiency, and insights into knowledge evolution in scientific literature.

Findings

Incremental processing outperforms batch processing in hypothesis prediction and efficiency.

Change-aware instrumentation increases perceived novelty but reduces coverage.

Knowledge convergence signals significantly enhance hypothesis hit rates.

Abstract

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.