Blind Variation, Selective Retention: Improving Creative Idea Generation in AI Scientists
Abstract
Scientific discovery requires ideas that are original, useful, and non-obvious. Yet AI scientists are typically given as much task information as possible during idea generation, which can anchor generation toward familiar approaches. Inspired by the cognitive framework of Blind Variation and Selective Retention (BVSR), we propose a discovery framework that separates these two roles of information: it generates proposals under deliberately limited task information to broaden exploration, then learns from proposals previously verified on the same task and their outcomes to retain promising candidates for costly empirical evaluation. We evaluate BVSR across five proposer models and 12 scientific tasks. Limiting task information substantially increases proposal originality and non-obviousness, and produces a larger share of highly creative and high-utility proposals than existing state-of-the-art prompting-based baselines. Learning from prior proposal outcomes on the task further improves candidate selection, discarding half of the candidates while retaining most top-performing proposals. When incorporated into existing AI-scientist workflows, BVSR achieves stronger discoveries across gene expression analysis, drug response prediction, anomaly detection, scaling law discovery, and brain activity prediction. These results suggest that effective AI scientists should use information differently across stages of discovery: constrain task-specific information during exploration while exploiting accumulated empirical experience on the task.
Community
Blind Variation withholds most of the task description at ideation time, so independent generations stop converging on the same idea. Selective Retention trains a selector on proposal–outcome pairs from the same task and spends verification budget only on the candidates it ranks highly.
Giving the model less task information on purpose to widen exploration, then filtering with verified outcomes, is a neat reversal of how most of us prompt. It reminds me that more context is not always better. Did the proposals end up more different from each other, or only different from the usual ones?
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2611.12184 Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash Models citing this paper 1
Datasets citing this paper 1
Xkev/BVSR-data
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper