Theoretical adversarial collaboration: a template

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.16374v1
• Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 15:17:37 GMT
• Title: Theoretical adversarial collaboration: a template
• Abstract summary: We propose a five-step template for conducting theoretical adversarial collaborations.<n>The procedure is designed to move disputants beyond familiar critique-reply-rejoinder exchanges.<n>The template was developed through reflection on, and implemented in, our own adversarial collaboration in philosophy and foundations of physics.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Adversarial collaborations have become increasingly prominent in empirical science, where proponents of competing theories jointly design experiments capable of discriminating between them. Much less attention has been given to theoretical disputes that cannot readily be resolved by experiment. We distinguish theoretical adversarial collaboration from its empirical counterpart and propose a five-step template for conducting it. The procedure is designed to move disputants beyond familiar critique-reply-rejoinder exchanges by requiring sustained clarification, supervised steel-manning of the target theory, and the collaborative development and refinement of objections. Its condition for success is that the collaboration produce insights that substantially exceed the existing literature: either novel, non-obvious arguments show that the theory can meet the objections, or the theory's advocate concedes that new conceptual resources or revisions are required. The template was developed through reflection on, and implemented in, our own adversarial collaboration in philosophy and foundations of physics. We offer it here as a general framework for constructive and publishable progress in philosophy, foundational science, and other areas of inquiry in which disputes cannot readily be resolved by experiment.

Related papers

• Position: Anthropomorphic Misalignment Research Needs Stronger Evidence [52.76826423649968]
  We show how conceptual ambiguity, non-robust datasets, experimental design, and insufficient causal interventions can lead to overinterpretation of model behaviors.<n>This position paper aims to offer guidance on evidentiary considerations that can help improve methodological rigor in AMR.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-29T16:38:53Z)
• Automated Adversarial Collaboration for Advancing Theory Building in the Cognitive Sciences [9.858210301644549]
  We introduce an automated adversarial collaboration framework for adjudicating among competing theories.<n>The system combines LLM-based theory agents, program synthesis, and information-theoretic experimental design in a closed loop.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-28T11:41:08Z)
• PaperMind: Benchmarking Agentic Reasoning and Critique over Scientific Papers in Multimodal LLMs [68.27437550335709]
  We introduce PaperMind, a benchmark designed to evaluate integrated and agent-oriented scientific reasoning over research papers.<n>PaperMind is constructed from real scientific papers across seven domains, including agriculture, biology, chemistry, computer science, medicine, physics, and economics.<n>By analyzing model behavior across multiple tasks, PaperMind enables a diagnostic evaluation of integrated scientific reasoning behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-23T05:42:39Z)
• Realism and Ontology in Quantum Mechanics and String Theory [0.0]
  Dualities in physics have challenged traditional forms of scientific realism.<n>We argue that ontological commitment should be treated as tied to specific empirical contexts.<n>We show how our view accommodates ontological pluralism while preserving a robust form of structural realism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-18T23:31:13Z)
• Roundtable Policy: Improving Scientific Reasoning and Narratives through Confidence-Weighted Consensus of LLMs [44.65081087151887]
  We introduce Roundtable Policy, a complementary inference-time reasoning framework that performs inference through the weighted consensus of multiple large language models (LLMs)<n>Our findings indicate that this approach significantly enhances reasoning in complex heterogeneous scientific tasks and improves scientific narratives in terms of creativity, rigor, and logical coherence.<n>Our approach emphasizes structured and interpretable consensus rather than opaque convergence, while requiring only black-box access and uniform procedures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-20T23:31:53Z)
• Theory building for empirical software engineering in qualitative research: Operationalization [4.268591926288843]
  This paper presents a set of procedures to systematize the operationalization phase in theory building.<n>We operationalize the concepts and propositions that make up our theory to generate constructs and empirically testable hypotheses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-03T11:15:27Z)
• Towards CausalGPT: A Multi-Agent Approach for Faithful Knowledge Reasoning via Promoting Causal Consistency in LLMs [55.66353783572259]
  Causal-Consistency Chain-of-Thought harnesses multi-agent collaboration to bolster the faithfulness and causality of foundation models.<n>Our framework demonstrates significant superiority over state-of-the-art methods through extensive and comprehensive evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T04:59:21Z)
• MindDial: Belief Dynamics Tracking with Theory-of-Mind Modeling for Situated Neural Dialogue Generation [62.44907105496227]
  MindDial is a novel conversational framework that can generate situated free-form responses with theory-of-mind modeling. We introduce an explicit mind module that can track the speaker's belief and the speaker's prediction of the listener's belief. Our framework is applied to both prompting and fine-tuning-based models, and is evaluated across scenarios involving both common ground alignment and negotiation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-27T07:24:32Z)
• Revise and Resubmit: An Intertextual Model of Text-based Collaboration in Peer Review [52.359007622096684]
  Peer review is a key component of the publishing process in most fields of science. Existing NLP studies focus on the analysis of individual texts. editorial assistance often requires modeling interactions between pairs of texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-22T16:39:38Z)
• Unscrambling the omelette of causation and inference: The framework of causal-inferential theories [0.0]
  We introduce the notion of a causal-inferential theory using a process-theoretic formalism. Recasting the notions of operational and realist theories in this mold clarifies what a realist account of an experiment offers beyond an operational account. We argue that if one can identify axioms for a realist causal-inferential theory such that the notions of causation and inference can differ from their conventional (classical) interpretations, then one has the means of defining an intrinsically quantum notion of realism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-07T17:58:22Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.