Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2608.28822

Filling holes in science draws collective attention, but most higher-order holes remain unexplored

Abstract

Much scientific discovery involves filling holes between ideas and arguments that unleash techno-scientific advance. Representing knowledge as high-dimensional concept embeddings, we use persistent homology to detect holes of increasing order, from gaps between disconnected ideas to higher-order cavities, and identify the research works that fill them. We find two empirical asymmetries. Researchers who fill anticipated holes are poised to draw collective attention by staging outsized novelty and foresight, indicating that bridging holes anticipates where science will converge, most strongly in empirical fields and least in formal and design fields. Yet as knowledge grows, higher-order holes explode while the fraction science fills collapses, leaving most higher-order combinations unexplored. These results call for a richer science of holes, and mark a frontier where contemporary AI might help fill the high-dimensional gaps human science opens.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Jiajie Luo, James A. Evans. 2026-08-28. Filling holes in science draws collective attention, but most higher-order holes remain unexplored. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28822

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Citing Less Critically: LLMs Reshape the Rhetoric and Reach of Scientific Citation

Scientific citations carry rhetorical intent. Scholars may cite prior work positively (supporting), negatively (contrasting), or neutrally (mentioning). As large language models (LLMs) increasingly assist scientific writing, whether they reproduce citations with the same rhetorical intent as humans remains unclear. We introduce a masked-citation task to compare human and LLM-generated citation behavior. For each citation context, an LLM generates a replacement citation sentence, producing a counterfactual corpus directly comparable to human citation. We analyze what, whom, and how models cite, using an LLM-as-a-judge to classify citation intent and a 20-million-edge coauthorship network to measure social distance between cited authors. Across six popular LLMs and 1,746 top NLP conference papers (63k+ contexts, 132k+ citations), three patterns emerge: (1) Compared with human citation, LLMs cite significantly less critically; (2) LLMs over-cite popular and older papers, a tendency amplified for contrasting citations where human writing more often draws on recent, niche work; (3) Whereas humans often cite within their close social network, especially for supporting citations, LLMs tend to draw on more socially distant authors. Together, these differences are double-edged: LLM citation reaches beyond a scholar's close collaborators while being less critical and amplifying visibility bias, reshaping the rhetoric and reach of scientific citation.

cs.DL

Are Widely Known Findings Easier to Retract?

Failures of retraction are common in science. Why do they occur? And what determines whether a retraction is successful? We use data from citation records and Altmetrics to test proposed answers to these questions. LaCroix et al. employ network models to argue the social spread of information helps explain failures of retraction. One prediction is that widely known results, surprisingly, should be easier to retract, since their retraction is more relevant. Our results support this conclusion. We find highly cited papers show more significant reductions in citation after retraction and garner more attention to their retractions as they occur.

cs.DL

Constructing the Field of Philanthropic and Nonprofit Studies: Evidence from Citation Networks

Philanthropic and nonprofit studies (PNPS) has grown rapidly as an interdisciplinary field, yet its intellectual structure and boundaries remain only partially visible. This study maps the field by combining journal- and keyword-based retrieval with citation network analysis, natural language processing, and large language model-assisted cluster labeling. Using 60,917 Web of Science articles, we identify major topical communities, examine their structural connections, and assess how well mainstream PNPS journals represent the broader landscape of related scholarship. The results show that PNPS is a loosely connected field dominated by three distinct "power centers": nonprofit organizations, social movements, and voluntary action. The analysis also reveals a broader disciplinary footprint than commonly recognized, extending beyond the social sciences and humanities into areas such as biomedicine and technology. These findings clarify the organization of PNPS and highlight opportunities for stronger integration across research domains.

cs.SI