NOVA: Fundamental Limits of Knowledge Discovery Through AI
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Can AI systems discover new knowledge through iterative self-improvement, and at what cost? We introduce NOVA, which models the ``generate, verify, accumulate, retrain'' loop as an adaptive sampling process over a knowledge space. We give sufficient conditions for accumulated genuine knowledge to cover a finite domain and show how violations produce contamination, forgetting, exploration failure, and acceptance failure. We then analyze how adaptive generation arises from recursive retraining. In an explicit distribution-level model where accepted artifacts influence the next generator, we identify a recursive-feedback phase transition. Unanchored feedback can lock generation onto early accepted artifacts and leave initially reachable valid artifacts undiscovered with positive probability. Anchoring updates to a persistent base distribution prevents unbounded distortion and guarantees continued exposure. Under imperfect verification, we identify a contamination trap: as easy knowledge is exhausted, even small false-positive rates can admit invalid artifacts faster than genuine discoveries. We show that Good--Turing estimation is a local batch-diversity diagnostic, not an estimator of the historically undiscovered valid mass governing long-term progress. Under a Zipf tail with exponent α>1, the cumulative generation cost of obtaining D distinct genuine discoveries satisfies Rrm cum(D)=Theta(crm genDα). When the valid base distribution has such a tail, anchored retraining preserves the exposure needed for this scaling law. Finally, we show how human guidance, generation, and verification can redirect or expand discovery when autonomous sampling stalls because of repetition, vanishing exposure, or unreliable verification.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 May 2026.
Builds on
12 of 32 references.
References · 12
- 2022STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With Reasoningcited by 895
- 2023Reinforced Self-Training (ReST) for Language Modelingcited by 486
- 2025DeepSeek-Prover-V2: Advancing Formal Mathematical Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning for Subgoal Decompositioncited by 270
- 2024DeepSeek-Prover-V1.5: Harnessing Proof Assistant Feedback for Reinforcement Learning and Monte-Carlo Tree Searchcited by 189
- 2024Is Model Collapse Inevitable? Breaking the Curse of Recursion by Accumulating Real and Synthetic Datacited by 143
- 2024How Bad is Training on Synthetic Data? A Statistical Analysis of Language Model Collapsecited by 75
- 2021How good is Good-Turing for Markov samples?cited by 4
- 2021Non-Bayesian Parametric Missing-Mass Estimationcited by 2
- 2021Mean-Squared Accuracy of Good-Turing Estimatorcited by 2
- 2024How Much is Unseen Depends Chiefly on Information About the Seencited by 2
- 2025Besting Good--Turing: Optimality of Non-Parametric Maximum Likelihood for Distribution Estimationcited by 2
- 2026Blind-Spot Mass: A Good-Turing Framework for Quantifying Deployment Coverage Risk in Machine Learning Systemscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.