accelerating-social-science-research

name: "accelerating-social-science-research" description: "Implement the EXPERIGEN agentic framework for automated hypothesis generation and empirical validation on datasets. Uses a Bayesian-optimization-inspired Generator-Experimenter loop to discover statistically significant, novel hypotheses from data. Trigger phrases: 'generate hypotheses from this dataset', 'discover patterns in social data', 'run EXPERIGEN on this data', 'automated hypothesis testing', 'find significant predictors in this dataset', 'data-driven hypothesis discovery'."

EXPERIGEN: Agentic Hypothesis Generation and Experimentation

This skill enables Claude to apply the EXPERIGEN framework — a two-phase agentic system that automates end-to-end scientific discovery on structured datasets. The framework pairs a Generator agent (which proposes candidate hypotheses guided by Bayesian optimization principles) with an Experimenter agent (which operationalizes and statistically validates each hypothesis). By iterating between exploration of novel hypotheses and local refinement of promising ones, EXPERIGEN discovers 2-4x more statistically significant hypotheses than standard approaches while controlling for spurious findings through confounder analysis and Bonferroni correction.

When to Use

• When the user has a labeled dataset (CSV, DataFrame, or database) and wants to discover what features predict an outcome variable (e.g., "what makes a Reddit post persuasive?", "what predicts headline engagement?")
• When the user asks to generate and test research hypotheses from data rather than manually specifying features
• When analyzing text, image, or relational datasets for latent predictive patterns (e.g., deception detection, AI-generated content detection, memorability prediction)
• When the user wants to go beyond simple feature importance and needs hypotheses that are interpretable, novel, and statistically grounded
• When the user needs to control for confounders — not just find correlations but validate that effects survive covariate adjustment
• When building a feature bank from discovered hypotheses to train a downstream classifier on held-out data

Key Technique

EXPERIGEN uses a Bayesian optimization analogy to structure hypothesis search. The Generator acts as the acquisition function: it balances exploitation (refining hypotheses that already show statistical significance) with exploration (proposing semantically distant hypotheses to avoid local optima). Formally, each hypothesis H is scored by an acquisition objective A(H) = s(H) + N(H, H_prev), where s(H) measures plausibility based on prior validated hypotheses, and N(H, H_prev) is an exploration bonus proportional to the semantic distance (via text embeddings) from the existing hypothesis bank. This prevents the system from converging on a narrow cluster of redundant findings.

The Experimenter is a ReAct agent with access to a code interpreter and an LLM-based feature extractor. Given a natural-language hypothesis (e.g., "posts that expand the reader's perceived decision space are more persuasive"), it: (1) operationalizes the construct into a computable feature, (2) identifies potential confounders, (3) runs a statistical test with Bonferroni correction (acceptance threshold p < alpha/T across T refinement steps), and (4) returns structured feedback including p-value, effect size, and refinement guidance. This feedback loops back to the Generator, which either refines the hypothesis to address identified confounds or proposes a new seed hypothesis in the next outer iteration.

A critical innovation is the hypothesis bank — a curated set of up to K validated hypotheses maintained via semantic diversity. Embeddings (e.g., from text-embedding-3-large) are computed for each hypothesis, and greedy selection maximizes minimum pairwise distance. This bank serves dual purposes: it conditions the Generator to avoid redundancy, and its features are combined into a multivariate logistic regression for downstream prediction on held-out data.

Step-by-Step Workflow

1. Construct the dataset description: Parse the input dataset and build a structured summary containing (a) schema with column names and types, (b) statistical summaries per feature (mean, variance, distribution shape), (c) 5-10 representative observations sampled to illustrate diversity. This description is the Generator's primary input.

2. Define the prediction target and evaluation split: Identify the binary or categorical outcome variable. Split data into train/validation/test sets. If the dataset has group structure (e.g., threads, sessions), ensure splits respect group boundaries to prevent leakage.

3. Initialize the hypothesis bank: Start with an empty bank H_0. Set hyperparameters: number of outer iterations N (typically 5-10), refinement steps per iteration T (typically 3-5), and bank capacity K (typically 10-20).

4. Run the Generator (outer loop): For each outer iteration i, prompt the Generator with: (a) the dataset description, (b) the current hypothesis bank H_{i-1}, and (c) an instruction to propose a hypothesis that is semantically distant from existing entries while remaining plausible given observed data patterns. The Generator outputs a natural-language hypothesis with a stated expected direction of effect.

5. Run the Experimenter (inner loop): For each proposed hypothesis, execute the ReAct evaluation cycle:

   • Operationalize: Convert the hypothesis into a computable feature (regex pattern, text classifier call, image feature extraction, or aggregation over relational structure).
   • Identify confounders: Determine covariates that could explain away the effect (e.g., text length, session identity, group membership).
   • Test statistically: Run logistic or linear regression with the feature and covariates. Apply Bonferroni correction: accept only if p < alpha/T.
   • Report: Return p-value, effect size (odds ratio or Cohen's d), and specific refinement guidance if the hypothesis fails.

6. Refine or reject: If the Experimenter returns a non-significant result with actionable feedback (e.g., "effect disappears when controlling for post length"), feed the feedback back to the Generator for up to T-1 additional refinement attempts. The Generator adds qualifiers, changes the operationalization, or narrows the claim scope.

7. Update the hypothesis bank: If a hypothesis passes significance testing, compute its text embedding and add it to the bank. If the bank exceeds capacity K, run greedy diversity selection: keep the subset of K hypotheses that maximizes minimum pairwise cosine distance.

8. Build the combined predictor: After all outer iterations complete, extract the feature corresponding to each validated hypothesis in the bank. Train a multivariate logistic regression on the training set using all hypothesis-derived features. Evaluate on the held-out test set and report accuracy, AUC, and per-feature coefficients.

9. Rank and present findings: Sort validated hypotheses by effect size and statistical significance. For each, present: the natural-language claim, the operationalization method, the p-value, the effect size, and any confounders controlled for. Flag hypotheses where the effect was initially confounded but survived after covariate adjustment.

10. Suggest real-world validation: For the top hypotheses, propose concrete A/B test designs or field experiments that could validate the finding outside the observed dataset. Specify the treatment, control, randomization unit, and minimum detectable effect size.

Concrete Examples

Example 1: Discovering predictors of persuasive arguments

User: I have a CSV of Reddit ChangeMyView posts with columns [post_text,
is_persuasive, author_karma, thread_id, reply_position]. Find what makes
arguments persuasive.

Approach:
1. Parse the CSV, note the binary target `is_persuasive`, and that
   `thread_id` creates group structure (split by thread, not by row).
2. Build dataset description: 4,200 rows, text lengths range 20-800 words,
   ~30% persuasive. Sample 8 representative examples.
3. Initialize empty hypothesis bank, set N=6 outer iterations, T=4
   refinement steps, K=15 bank capacity.
4. Generator proposes: "Arguments that explicitly acknowledge the
   original poster's position before presenting a counter-argument
   are more persuasive."
5. Experimenter operationalizes: use LLM to classify whether post
   contains explicit acknowledgment (binary feature). Controls for
   reply_position and post length. Result: p=0.003, OR=1.8. Passes
   threshold (0.05/4 = 0.0125). Added to bank.
6. Next iteration, Generator proposes: "Posts that expand the reader's
   perceived decision space (offering alternatives rather than binary
   refutation) are more persuasive." Distant from bank entry #1.
7. Experimenter operationalizes via LLM feature extractor. Controls
   for length, position, acknowledgment. Result: p=0.0008, OR=2.3.
   Added to bank.
8. After 6 iterations, bank contains 9 validated hypotheses. Combined
   logistic regression achieves 71% accuracy (vs. 62% baseline).

Output (per hypothesis):
| # | Hypothesis | Feature Type | p-value | Effect Size (OR) | Confounders Controlled |
|---|-----------|-------------|---------|-------------------|----------------------|
| 1 | Acknowledging OP's position | LLM classifier | 0.003 | 1.8 | length, position |
| 2 | Expanding decision space | LLM classifier | 0.0008 | 2.3 | length, position, H1 |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
Combined model accuracy: 71.2% (test set)

Example 2: Detecting AI-generated text

User: I have 5,000 labeled human vs. AI-generated essays. What
linguistic features distinguish them?

Approach:
1. Parse dataset: columns [text, label(human/AI), topic, word_count].
   Target: label. Standard random split (no group structure).
2. Generator proposes: "AI-generated text uses fewer discourse markers
   (however, moreover, nevertheless) per sentence than human text."
3. Experimenter: regex count of discourse markers / sentence count.
   Controls for topic and word_count. Result: p=0.02, OR=0.7.
   Passes (0.05/3=0.017 — does NOT pass). Refine.
4. Generator refines: "AI-generated text uses discourse markers more
   uniformly across paragraphs (lower variance in marker density)."
5. Experimenter: compute per-paragraph marker density, take std dev.
   Controls for topic, length. Result: p=0.001, OR=0.5. Passes.
6. Bank accumulates features like: marker variance, hedging frequency,
   sentence-initial pronoun patterns, paragraph length entropy.

Output:
Discovered 12 significant features across 8 iterations.
Top 3 by effect size:
  1. Paragraph length entropy (AI text more uniform): OR=0.4, p<0.001
  2. Hedging language density: OR=0.6, p=0.002
  3. Discourse marker variance: OR=0.5, p=0.001
Combined classifier: 83% accuracy (vs. 74% with standard features)

Example 3: Multimodal — image memorability prediction

User: I have 8,000 image pairs labeled by which is more memorable,
plus image files. What visual properties predict memorability?

Approach:
1. Dataset has [image_path_a, image_path_b, more_memorable_label].
   Pairwise structure requires careful operationalization.
2. Generator proposes: "Images containing human faces in unexpected
   contexts (e.g., non-portrait settings) are more memorable."
3. Experimenter: use vision model to detect faces and classify
   context as portrait/non-portrait. Compute binary feature per
   image. Run Bradley-Terry model on pairs. p=0.004, effect=1.6x.
4. Generator proposes: "Images with higher color contrast between
   foreground subject and background are more memorable."
5. Experimenter: segment foreground/background, compute mean LAB
   color distance. p=0.01, effect=1.3x. Passes after controlling
   for image brightness and complexity.

Output:
5 validated visual memorability hypotheses discovered.
Only method to surface significant memorability predictors in
this dataset (baselines found 0-1 significant features).

Best Practices

• Do: Always apply Bonferroni correction within each refinement chain. If you allow T=4 refinement attempts, your per-test threshold is alpha/4, not alpha. This prevents inflated false discovery rates from multiple testing.
• Do: Explicitly identify and control for confounders before declaring significance. EXPERIGEN's key advantage over naive feature mining is confounder awareness — a correlation that vanishes after controlling for text length or group membership is not a discovery.
• Do: Maintain semantic diversity in the hypothesis bank using embedding-based distance. Greedy max-min selection prevents the bank from filling with minor variations of the same insight.
• Do: Operationalize hypotheses reproducibly — use deterministic regex/computation where possible, and set fixed random seeds for LLM-based feature extraction to ensure reproducibility.
• Avoid: Treating the Generator's output as ground truth. Every hypothesis must pass through the Experimenter's statistical validation. The Generator's role is to propose, not to conclude.
• Avoid: Running the framework on tiny datasets (< 200 observations). Statistical tests lose power and Bonferroni correction becomes prohibitively conservative with small samples. Recommend at least 500 observations for reliable discovery.

Error Handling

• Hypothesis is too vague to operationalize: If the Experimenter cannot convert a hypothesis into a computable feature (e.g., "posts with good vibes are more persuasive"), return feedback requesting a more specific, measurable construct. The Generator should reformulate with concrete indicators.
• All refinement steps fail: After T unsuccessful refinements, abandon the hypothesis and move to the next outer iteration. Do not force significance — this is the system working correctly by filtering out weak hypotheses.
• Confounder eliminates effect: This is a success, not a failure. Report the confounding relationship (e.g., "the effect of X is fully explained by Y") as a finding in itself. Update the hypothesis bank context so the Generator avoids similar confounded proposals.
• Feature extraction is computationally expensive: For LLM-based features on large datasets, subsample for initial significance testing (e.g., 1,000 rows), then validate on the full dataset only for hypotheses that pass the subsample test.
• Hypothesis bank reaches capacity: Apply greedy diversity selection — embed all candidates, iteratively select the one maximizing minimum distance to the already-selected set, until K hypotheses remain.

Limitations

• Requires a labeled dataset with a clear prediction target. Unsupervised discovery (finding interesting patterns without a target variable) is not supported by this framework.
• LLM-based feature extraction introduces non-determinism. Even with fixed seeds, different model versions may operationalize the same hypothesis differently, affecting reproducibility across time.
• The framework assumes hypotheses can be tested via observational data with covariate adjustment. It cannot establish causation — only controlled experiments (like the A/B test described in the paper) can do that. Always frame findings as predictive associations, not causal claims.
• Computationally intensive: each outer iteration involves multiple LLM calls (Generator + Experimenter + potential feature extraction). Budget approximately 10-20 LLM calls per outer iteration.
• Expert validation showed 88% of hypotheses were rated novel and 70% impactful, but this means roughly 12-30% may be obvious or not actionable. Human review of the final hypothesis bank is still recommended before acting on findings.

Reference

Paper: Accelerating Social Science Research via Agentic Hypothesization and Experimentation — Sen Gupta et al., 2026. Look for: Section 3 (the acquisition objective formula and Generator-Experimenter loop), Section 4 (Experimenter's ReAct evaluation pipeline), Section 11.1 (full prompts), and Section 6 (the A/B test methodology showing 344% effect size on real-world conversion).