mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Capability-Gated Planning: Cost-to-Goal Discovery and the Limits of Myopic Experiment Selection

arXiv 2608.05085 ↗First posted 5 Aug 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Systems that automate scientific discovery must repeatedly decide which experiment to run, which hypothesis to test, which tool to build, and when to stop. Many systems make these decisions by maximizing a myopic score such as expected information gain per unit cost or a learned plausibility score. We identify a structural limitation of this approach. Some actions are constructive: they acquire an epistemic capability (an instrument, assay, pipeline, simulator, or abstraction) whose value lies not in the information returned immediately but in the future actions it makes available. When the least-cost route to a confident answer requires a chain of such constructions, a planner that scores actions only by information obtainable within a bounded horizon cannot value the first construction: it yields no information within the horizon and is dominated by any measurement with positive information, however small. We formulate goal-directed discovery as a stochastic shortest-path problem in belief space in which constructive experiments change the downstream action graph, and prove that for every lookahead depth d there is an instance on which every myopic information-maximizing planner has an unbounded approximation ratio, and a related instance on which it never reaches the goal. The mechanism is a capability-indistinguishability lemma: within the horizon, acquiring a capability can be observationally indistinguishable from paying for a null action. This establishes capability gating as a reachability axis of difficulty distinct from curvature (submodularity) and information order (adaptivity gaps). We introduce CG-Plan, an incremental replanner with a capability-aware cost-to-go heuristic h = h_cap + h_exp. In a controlled testbed, the performance gap appears only under gating, persists for every fixed horizon, and arises when near-miss hypotheses come from a data-consistent proposer.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Aug 2026.

Builds on

21 of 49 references.

References · 21

  1. 2023Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Modelscited by 2,081
  2. 2017Curiosity-driven Exploration by Self-supervised Predictioncited by 1,173
  3. 2024The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discoverycited by 1,002
  4. 2025AlphaEvolve: A coding agent for scientific and algorithmic discoverycited by 763
  5. 2018Diversity is All You Need: Learning Skills without a Reward Functioncited by 734
  6. 2025The AI Scientist-v2: Workshop-Level Automated Scientific Discovery via Agentic Tree Searchcited by 375
  7. 2025Accelerating scientific discovery with Co-Scientistcited by 353
  8. 2014On the Complexity of Best Arm Identification in Multi-Armed Bandit Modelscited by 280
  9. 2019Variational Bayesian Optimal Experimental Designcited by 116
  10. 2016DESPOT: Online POMDP Planning with Regularizationcited by 105
  11. 2021Deep Adaptive Design: Amortizing Sequential Bayesian Experimental Designcited by 103
  12. 2017On Nesting Monte Carlo Estimatorscited by 82
9 more
  1. 2025Kosmos: An AI Scientist for Autonomous Discoverycited by 78
  2. 2013Empowerment -- an Introductioncited by 65
  3. 2020Pandora's Box Problem with Order Constraintscited by 12
  4. 2016Adaptivity Gaps for Stochastic Probing: Submodular and XOS Functionscited by 11
  5. 2022Online Learning for Min Sum Set Cover and Pandora's Boxcited by 11
  6. 2014Optimal Value of Information in Graphical Modelscited by 7
  7. 2023Weitzman's Rule for Pandora's Box with Correlationscited by 7
  8. 2019(Near) Optimal Adaptivity Gaps for Stochastic Multi-Value Probingcited by 4
  9. 2026Why LLMs Fail at Causal Discovery and How Interventional Agents Escapecited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.