The hedge words of science
Scientists are trained to qualify their claims. Across 2,400 arXiv abstracts, how much a field hedges turns out to track something simpler than caution — whether it observes the world or proves things about it. And despite the reputation, hedging isn't on the rise.
Scientific writing runs on hedges. A result may indicate something; an effect appears to hold; a mechanism is likely responsible. These are the words that separate a claim from an assertion — the ones a careful author reaches for when the data supports a direction but not a certainty. Style guides tend to treat them as clutter. Working scientists treat them as honesty.
So how much do scientists actually hedge, and does it differ by field? I sampled 2,400 recent abstracts from arXiv across 8 disciplines and counted the hedges — 48 epistemic softeners, a trimmed version of the lexicon the applied linguist Ken Hyland built for exactly this — as a rate per 100 words.
The headline is that the rate is small. Even the most tentative fields land under one hedge per 100 words; an abstract of 150 words carries one, maybe two. Hedging is a garnish, not a base note. But the size of the garnish is not the same everywhere, and where it thins out is the interesting part.
Proof doesn’t hedge; observation does
How much each field hedges
Hedge words as a rate per 100 words, in a sample of recent abstracts from each field.
Show the data
| Field | Hedges / 100 words |
|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 0.54 |
| Astrophysics | 0.54 |
| Econometrics | 0.43 |
| Statistics | 0.42 |
| Computational linguistics | 0.37 |
| Machine learning | 0.33 |
| Condensed matter | 0.33 |
| Combinatorics | 0.22 |
Source: arXiv abstracts; counted in scripts/fetch-arxiv-hedging.mjs
The spread runs about 2.5× from top to bottom, and it doesn’t sort the way “hard” and “soft” science would predict. Neuroscience and Astrophysics hedge the most. Combinatorics hedges the least — barely a third as often.
What separates the ends isn’t rigor, it’s subject. The fields that hedge most are the ones making claims about a large, noisy, only-partly-observed world: brains, galaxies, economies. Their results are inferences, and an inference wears its uncertainty in the verb. The field that hedges least proves things. A combinatorics abstract states a theorem; a theorem is either true or it is not, and there is nothing to soften. Between them sit the computational fields, which mostly build — a method either runs or it doesn’t — and so have less to qualify than to report.
Hedging, in other words, isn’t a measure of how careful a field is. It’s a measure of how much of its work is argument about the world versus proof about itself.
One word does most of the work
Science's favourite hedges
The most common hedge words across the whole sample.
Show the data
| Hedge | Times used |
|---|---|
| may | 373 |
| potential | 177 |
| suggest | 120 |
| possible | 117 |
| should | 116 |
| approximately | 92 |
| largely | 90 |
| indicate | 65 |
| suggests | 52 |
| unclear | 45 |
| likely | 42 |
| appear | 41 |
Source: arXiv abstracts; counted in scripts/fetch-arxiv-hedging.mjs
The hedging is also concentrated in a very small vocabulary. One modal verb, may, is used 373 times — roughly 20% of every hedge in the sample, more than the next several combined. After it, potential and suggest do the bulk of what’s left. A field doesn’t reach for a thesaurus of caution; it reaches for the same handful of words, over and over, and may is the one it reaches for first.
That single word is doing a lot of quiet labour. “X may cause Y” is the smallest possible retreat from “X causes Y” — three letters that turn a discovery into a candidate. It is the most efficient tool in the scientific register, which is presumably why it wins.
The reputation says rising. The data says not.
Scientific writing has a reputation for growing ever more cautious — more caveats, more qualifications, more committee-proofing. If that were true of the prose itself, hedging should climb over time. It doesn’t.
Hedging over time
Hedge rate per 100 words, by year, for three fields — 2010 to 2025.
- Computational linguistics
- Astrophysics
- Neuroscience
Show the data
| Year | Computational linguistics | Astrophysics | Neuroscience |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 0.5 | 1.03 | 0.52 |
| 2013 | 0.59 | 0.93 | 0.67 |
| 2016 | 0.42 | 0.94 | 0.71 |
| 2019 | 0.36 | 0.75 | 0.7 |
| 2022 | 0.41 | 0.77 | 0.59 |
| 2025 | 0.34 | 0.77 | 0.68 |
Source: arXiv abstracts; counted in scripts/fetch-arxiv-hedging.mjs
Across fifteen years the lines are flat or falling. Astrophysics dropped from 1.03 to 0.77 hedges per 100 words; Computational linguistics fell from 0.5 to 0.34. None of the three trends up.
The decline in computational linguistics is the one I’d bet has a cause. Over this window the field reorganised itself around shared benchmarks and leaderboards, and a leaderboard rewards a particular kind of sentence: we achieve state of the art, not our method may perform competitively. When the result is a number on a public scoreboard, there’s less to hedge and less reason to. The prose got more confident because the claims got more checkable.
What this does and doesn’t measure
The point isn’t to grade anyone’s caution. It’s that the amount of hedging in a field’s writing is legible, stable, and tells you something true about the field: not how careful it is, but what kind of knowledge it’s in the business of making. Mathematics proves and states. Astronomy observes and qualifies. The prose gives it away, one may at a time.