Learning to Outgrow a Theory: Experimental Discovery Beyond the Initial Hypothesis Space

Scientific discovery systems typically optimize experiments within a fixed hypothesis space. This creates a failure mode when all available candidates omit the same missing mechanism: candidate disagreement can collapse even while the model class is systematically wrong. We formulate experimental model-class revision, in which a discovery policy jointly proposes a structural edit and a diagnostic experiment that tests whether that edit is necessary. The method couples a class-level distinguishability objective, in which one shared parameterization must explain all selected experiments, with anytime-valid sequential evidence that triggers structural revision only after the current class is rejected. On 400 held-out controlled dynamical environments, the joint policy reaches 89.5% exact recovery with a budget of 32 real experiments, improving the strongest matched baseline by 10.0 percentage points while requiring fewer executed experiments and candidate fits. The learned revision–experiment pairing transfers across unseen mechanism combinations, held-out but expressible primitives, parameter extrapolation, and shifted experiment costs; when the true mechanism is outside the edit grammar, it detects library insufficiency in 88% of cases with a 5.5% false-support rate. Revision gains also transfer to ODEBench and ODEBase model-library tasks, as well as DiscoverPhysics worlds. These results support a view of scientific discovery in which deciding what mechanisms a theory should make expressible and where to collect evidence are treated as a single sequential decision problem.