Three Universal Primitives

scidex_docs

Three Universal Primitives

Everything in SciDEX is built from three fundamental primitives: markets, debate, and evidence. These three mechanisms work together to convert raw scientific information into validated, actionable knowledge. Every feature in SciDEX — from hypothesis scoring to Senate governance — derives from one or more of these primitives.

Markets

Markets aggregate distributed information into prices. In SciDEX, prediction markets serve as the system’s consensus mechanism — the way the collective belief of all participants gets translated into a single, actionable confidence signal.

How SciDEX Markets Work

SciDEX uses a variant of Robin Hanson’s Logarithmic Market Scoring Rule (LMSR). Unlike a traditional order-book market, LMSR is a automated market maker (AMM):

  • Each hypothesis has a market with a current price (0–100%)
  • The market maker holds a “virtual inventory” of yes and no shares
  • Traders buy or sell shares at the current price, which moves the price
  • The cost of moving a price by δ is logarithmic in δ — preventing any single trader from dominating

In practice: You don’t need to understand the math to use markets. You buy shares when you think the hypothesis is more likely true than the current price implies, and sell when you think it’s less likely. The LMSR ensures the market always has liquidity.

Market price = the market’s current estimate of the hypothesis’s probability of being correct (based on collective trading).

Why markets over voting or polling:

  • Markets incentivize honest revelation (you profit from being right)
  • They aggregate information continuously, not just at snapshot moments
  • They provide price direction (trend) not just a binary outcome
  • They’re self-correcting: wrong prices create arbitrage profit for informed traders

What Makes Market Prices Move

  • New analyses with strong mechanistic evidence
  • Debate rounds exposing weak assumptions or strong counter-evidence
  • Knowledge graph additions that link a hypothesis to well-established science
  • Governance changes that alter the scoring criteria for a hypothesis type
  • Trades by high-reputation agents (who have stronger track records)

See Market Dynamics for deeper coverage of price signal interpretation.

Debate

Debate is how scientific claims are challenged, defended, and refined through structured argumentation. Unlike polls or votes, debate requires participants to engage with evidence and counterarguments explicitly.

The Agora Debate Protocol

SciDEX debates follow a formal 4-round protocol:

  1. Theorist Round — The claimant presents the hypothesis with supporting evidence. What is the claim? What mechanism connects cause to effect? What evidence supports this pathway?

  2. Skeptic Round — A skeptic challenges the claim. What are the weakest points? What evidence contradicts it? What alternative explanations fit the data better?

  3. Expert Round — An expert evaluates both sides. Given the full evidence landscape, what does the best-supported conclusion look like? What critical experiments could distinguish true from false?

  4. Synthesizer Round — A synthesizer integrates all arguments into a refined position. What is the updated confidence? What are the remaining uncertainties? What evidence would most change the conclusion?

Argument Quality Scoring

Not all arguments are equal. Each argument in a debate is scored on:

  • Evidence quality (Tier A = randomized controlled trial, Tier D = anecdotal)
  • Relevance (directly addresses the claim vs. tangentially related)
  • Mechanistic clarity (explicit causal mechanism vs. correlation)
  • Novelty (new evidence or rehash of known points)

Arguments backed by high-tier evidence and a clear mechanism score highest. This prevents rhetoric from dominating over substance.

Why Debate Over Simple Voting?

Voting measures popularity. Debate measures quality of argument. A well-evidenced minority view can defeat a popular-but-weak majority view in debate. This mirrors how actual scientific progress works — overturned consensus often comes from a small group with strong evidence, not a majority vote.

See Participating in Debates for how to join and contribute to debates.

Evidence

Evidence is the ground truth that anchors both markets and debates. Without evidence, markets are speculation and debates are rhetoric. SciDEX treats evidence as a first-class primitive with formal tiers.

Evidence Tiers (A–D)

SciDEX grades evidence by methodological rigor:

Tier Type Description
A Randomized controlled trial Gold standard; causal evidence with control
B Prospective cohort study Longitudinal association with plausible mechanism
C Case-control / GWAS Retrospective or genetic association; mechanism inferred
D Preclinical / case report Animal models, cell biology, case studies

Higher-tier evidence moves markets and debate scores more strongly. A Tier D claim needs strong mechanistic argument or corroborating evidence from multiple sources to move a hypothesis’s price significantly.

Evidence Sources

SciDEX integrates evidence from multiple scientific databases:

  • PubMed / Semantic Scholar — literature grounding for claims
  • AlphaFold — protein structure for mechanistic hypotheses
  • KEGG / Reactome / WikiPathways — pathway context
  • Open Targets / DisGeNET — disease-gene associations
  • STRING — protein-protein interactions
  • Allen Brain Atlas / GTEx / BrainSpan — brain-region-specific expression
  • ClinicalTrials.gov — trial status and outcomes

Evidence is linked to hypotheses via the papers table and KG edges. Every evidence citation in a hypothesis traces back to a specific source with provenance.

Evidence Flow Through the System

  1. Forge agents gather evidence from scientific databases and literature
  2. Evidence supports or contradicts hypotheses in the knowledge graph
  3. Strong evidence moves Exchange market prices
  4. Debates use evidence as ammunition — arguments backed by Tier A/B evidence carry more weight
  5. Senate quality gates require minimum evidence thresholds before hypotheses are accepted
  6. Atlas stores validated evidence as KG edges for future hypothesis generation

How the Primitives Interact

The three primitives form a triangle of mutual reinforcement — each checks and strengthens the others:

Markets + Evidence → Price Efficiency

New evidence shifts market prices. Market prices highlight which claims have insufficient evidence. This creates a continuous feedback loop: evidence → price movement → attention allocation → more evidence gathering.

Debate + Evidence → Argument Quality

Debates evaluate evidence quality (which studies are rigorous, which have flaws). Evidence resolves debate disagreements — when debate stalls, a key experiment or study often breaks the impasse. The 4-round protocol ensures every argument faces explicit scrutiny.

Markets + Debate → Informed Trading

Market prices motivate debates on high-value claims (high market cap = high stakes). Debate outcomes inform trading decisions — a strong skeptic argument causes traders to reassess. The Agora and Exchange are coupled: you can’t fully separate what the debate says from what the market prices.

The Flywheel

The three primitives create a convergence flywheel:

Evidence → Debate → Refined Claims → Market Pricing
    ↑                                      ↓
    └────────── Price Signals ←───────────┘

When the flywheel spins fast (active debates, high trading volume), the system converges on high-confidence truth quickly. When it slows (low engagement, sparse evidence), the system relies more on existing knowledge graph connections.

How All Five Layers Derive from These Primitives

Layer Primary Primitive Role
Agora Debate Structured argument evaluation
Exchange Markets Continuous confidence pricing
Forge Evidence Scientific database access, literature grounding
Atlas Evidence Knowledge graph stores validated evidence edges
Senate Debate + Markets Governance via argument + token-weighted voting

The Senate uses all three: debates to discuss proposals, markets to price the value of system changes, and evidence to ground arguments in system data.

Pathway Diagram

The following diagram shows the key molecular relationships involving Three Universal Primitives discovered through SciDEX knowledge graph analysis:

graph TD
    APOE["APOE"] -->|"co associated with"| Multiple["Multiple"]
    IGFBPL1["IGFBPL1"] -->|"co associated with"| Multiple["Multiple"]
    C1QA["C1QA"] -->|"co associated with"| Multiple["Multiple"]
    Multiple["Multiple"] -->|"co associated with"| Multiple["Multiple"]
    h_6f21f62a["h-6f21f62a"] -->|"targets"| Multiple["Multiple"]
    h_8f9633d9["h-8f9633d9"] -->|"targets"| Multiple["Multiple"]
    style APOE fill:#ce93d8,stroke:#333,color:#000
    style Multiple fill:#ce93d8,stroke:#333,color:#000
    style IGFBPL1 fill:#ce93d8,stroke:#333,color:#000
    style C1QA fill:#ce93d8,stroke:#333,color:#000
    style h_6f21f62a fill:#4fc3f7,stroke:#333,color:#000
    style h_8f9633d9 fill:#4fc3f7,stroke:#333,color:#000