analiza aiqbench
This study investigates the limitations of conditional flow-matching models in recovering non-additive scientific interactions, revealing that they often hallucinate effects where none exist when extrapolating to unseen conditions. The research demonstrates that while individual variable effects are learned early, capturing complex interaction structures depends critically on whether the underlying condition structure persists from training to test data. These findings provide essential insights for researchers relying on generative models for scientific discovery, highlighting the risk of misleadingly accurate predictions that fail to capture causal mechanisms.
Predicting Unseen Scientific Interactions: Conditional Flow Models Hallucinate Non-Additive Effects
arXiv:2610.20288v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Conditional generative models are increasingly used for scientific prediction beyond the direct training support. Yet scientific questions often concern whether one intervention changes the effect of another. Such interactions can be of primary interest while explaining little of the total variation, allowing models to appear accurate overall without recovering the relevant scientific effect. It remains unclear how these models learn interactions and when these successfully extrapolate to unseen conditions. We therefore study interaction recovery in flow-matching models using a physiological time-series simulator, drug dose-response data, combinatorial cell perturbations, and molecular conformer generations, where we separate recovery from hallucinated interaction structure. In the controlled setting, individual effects are learned much earlier than interactions and models hallucinate interactions where none exist. Across settings, we find qualitatively different generalization problems, with successful prediction depending on whether condition structure continues from observed to held-out targets. When it does, interactions are recoverable. If not, models can generate plausible responses while missing the interaction. We furthermore find that hallucinations increase as targets become less identifiable, and that successful interaction recovery in output space can fail under nonlinear readouts. Finally, we show that aggregate fidelity metrics can conceal whether models learn and extrapolate interactions.
Abstract:Conditional generative models are increasingly used for scientific prediction beyond the direct training support. Yet scientific questions often concern whether one intervention changes the effect of another. Such interactions can be of primary interest while explaining little of the total variation, allowing models to appear accurate overall without recovering the relevant scientific effect. It remains unclear how these models learn interactions and when these successfully extrapolate to unseen conditions. We therefore study interaction recovery in flow-matching models using a physiological time-series simulator, drug dose-response data, combinatorial cell perturbations, and molecular conformer generations, where we separate recovery from hallucinated interaction structure. In the controlled setting, individual effects are learned much earlier than interactions and models hallucinate interactions where none exist. Across settings, we find qualitatively different generalization problems, with successful prediction depending on whether condition structure continues from observed to held-out targets. When it does, interactions are recoverable. If not, models can generate plausible responses while missing the interaction. We furthermore find that hallucinations increase as targets become less identifiable, and that successful interaction recovery in output space can fail under nonlinear readouts. Finally, we show that aggregate fidelity metrics can conceal whether models learn and extrapolate interactions.
Accepted as an oral at NeurIPS 2026 Workshop: AI Data Readiness for Scientific Discovery (AIDaR). Code: this https URL
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Quantitative Methods (q-bio.QM)
arXiv:2610.20288 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.20288v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.20288 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 313 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

What We Learned Trying to Catch AI Liars: An Aletheia's Quest Retrospective
EleutherAI · 25 aug. 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · 18 sept. 2026

XtalPi Holdings Limited: XtalPi Holdings Announces 2026 Interim Results
finanznachrichten.de · 19 aug. 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · 10 sept. 2026