Multi-Persona Debate System for Automated Scientific Hypothesis Generation

Modern scientific discovery is bottlenecked not by data scarcity, but by the inability to synthesize fragmented knowledge into actionable hypotheses. This challenge is especially acute in battery materials research, where electrochemical performance, interfacial behavior, and manufacturing feasibility must be optimized simultaneously. Here, we present the Multi-Persona Debate System (MPDS), a literature-grounded framework for automated scientific hypothesis generation that combines literature retrieval, long-context large language model reasoning, corpus-driven persona induction, and structured multi-agent debate. MPDS constructs literature snapshots of up to 500 papers, grounds agents in role-specific evidence pools, and conducts a three-round citation-aware debate followed by moderator synthesis, enabling negotiation between personas while preserving evidence traceability. We evaluate MPDS using a temporally controlled protocol excluding direct access to target papers, including two held-out battery-materials case studies and a blinded comparison across 30 matched cases. In sodium-ion anode and all-solid-state battery cathode design tasks, MPDS recovered design logics aligned with experimentally validated solution spaces and generated more mechanistically explicit, process-aware proposals than simpler baselines. To assess the impact of personas and debate, we introduce Integrative Hypothesis Quality scoring. In ablation studies, MPDS achieved the highest mean score among five conditions, with its largest advantage in cross-perspective integration. A laboratory follow-up suggests utility as a diagnostic aid for identifying practical bottlenecks in workflows. These results indicate that structured debate over literature snapshots improves hypothesis formation under coupled engineering constraints and provides a reusable workflow for text-intensive scientific discovery.