HypoSpace: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Set-Valued Hypothesis Generation under Underdetermination and Sublinear Coverage Bounds

Tingting Chen, Beibei Lin, Zifeng Yuan, Qiran Zou, Hongyu He, Anirudh Goyal, Yew-Soon Ong, Dianbo Liu · Oct 17, 2025 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Many scientific problems are underdetermined: multiple distinct hypotheses are equally consistent with the same observations. In such settings, effective inference requires not only producing valid explanations, but also systematically exploring and covering the admissible hypothesis set. We introduce HypoSpace, a benchmark that treats large language models (LLMs) as samplers over finite hypothesis spaces and evaluates them on three metrics: Validity, Uniqueness, and Recovery. HypoSpace spans three structured domains (causal graph inference, gravity-constrained 3D voxel reconstruction, and Boolean genetic interaction modeling) with deterministic validators and exactly enumerable solution spaces, plus real-world anchored case studies. Empirically, HypoSpace reveals a capability- and scale-dependent coverage failure: models can maintain high Validity while exhibiting reduced Uniqueness and Recovery as admissible hypothesis spaces become larger or more combinatorial. We further show that the analysis on stratified decoding partially mitigates this collapse, demonstrating HypoSpace's utility as a diagnostic benchmark for set-valued inference. Code is available at: https://github.com/CTT-Pavilion/_HypoSpace.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.