Hierarchical Planning and Execution for Autonomous Scientific Discovery Agents Using Fast–Slow Reasoning Architectures
Keywords:
autonomous scientific discovery, hierarchical planning, fast–slow reasoning, cognitive architecture, AI governance, socio-technical systemsAbstract
Autonomous scientific discovery agents represent a frontier in artificial intelligence, aiming to accelerate the generation and validation of knowledge across disciplines. This paper introduces a hierarchical planning and execution framework grounded in the cognitive metaphor of fast and slow reasoning, originally articulated by Kahneman and subsequently adapted into computational architectures. The proposed system integrates a rapid, intuitive pattern-matching module for hypothesis generation and anomaly detection with a deliberate, resource-intensive reasoning module for causal inference, experimental design, and theory refinement. A hierarchical controller governs the interplay between these two modes, prioritizing tasks based on epistemic uncertainty, resource constraints, and long-term scientific goals. We examine the architectural trade-offs between speed and accuracy, the governance mechanisms required to ensure robustness and reproducibility, and the infrastructure demands of deploying such agents at scale. The discussion extends to sustainability concerns, including energy consumption and data stewardship, as well as fairness and policy implications arising from automated science. By situating the framework within the broader history of AI and cognitive science, we argue that fast–slow architectures offer a principled path toward trustworthy and efficient autonomous discovery, provided that careful attention is paid to system-level design, oversight, and alignment with human values. This paper contributes a systems perspective that bridges cognitive modeling, engineering, and socio-technical governance.
References
1. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99-118.
2. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
3. Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2020). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (4th ed.). Pearson.
4. Schmidhuber, J. (2015). Deep learning in neural networks: An overview. Neural Networks, 61, 85-117.
5. Chen, X. (2024, November). Cloud Storage User Behavior Analysis and Dynamic Replica Strategy Optimization Based on Improved RFM and Fuzzy Clustering. In International Conference on Cognitive based Information Processing and Applications (pp. 425-434). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
6. Kitano, H. (2016). Artificial intelligence to win the Nobel Prize and beyond: Creating the engine for scientific discovery. AI Magazine, 37(1), 39-49.
7. Gil, Y., Greaves, M., Hendler, J., & Hirsh, H. (2014). Amplify scientific discovery with artificial intelligence. Science, 346(6206), 171-172.
8. Wang, H., Fu, T., Du, Y., Gao, W., Huang, K., Liu, Z., ... & Zitnik, M. (2023). Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence. Nature, 620(7972), 47-60.
9. Lake, B. M., Ullman, T. D., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Gershman, S. J. (2017). Building machines that learn and think like people. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e253.
10. Ha, D., & Schmidhuber, J. (2018). Recurrent world models facilitate policy evolution. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 31, pp. 2450-2462).
11. Dou, Z., Cui, D., Yan, J., Wang, W., Chen, B., Wang, H., ... & Zhang, S. (2025). Dsadf: Thinking fast and slow for decision making. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.08189.
12. Silver, D., Huang, A., Maddison, C. J., Guez, A., Sifre, L., Van Den Driessche, G., ... & Hassabis, D. (2016). Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature, 529(7587), 484-489.
13. Tegmark, M. (2017). Life 3.0: Being human in the age of artificial intelligence. Knopf.
14. Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1).
15. Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press.
16. Amodei, D., Olah, C., Steinhardt, J., Christiano, P., Schulman, J., & Mané, D. (2016). Concrete problems in AI safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565.
17. Rahwan, I., Cebrian, M., Obradovich, N., Bongard, J., Bonnefon, J. F., Breazeal, C., ... & Wellman, M. (2019). Machine behaviour. Nature, 568(7753), 477-486.
18. Holstein, K., Wortman Vaughan, J., Daumé III, H., Dudik, M., & Wallach, H. (2019). Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need? In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-16). ACM.
19. Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019). Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 59-68). ACM.
20. Goodman, B., & Flaxman, S. (2017). European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a 'right to explanation'. AI Magazine, 38(3), 50-57.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Advanced Artificial Intelligence Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
