Many AI Analysts, One Dataset: Navigating the Agentic Data Science Multiverse

Empirical research rarely admits a unique analysis. Different analytical choices can lead to different conclusions from the same data, yet these hidden forking paths are difficult to observe. We show that AI agents capture much of the analytical variation among human researchers while making these paths explicit. Across four high-stakes domains, assigning different personas is sufficient for AI agents to report divergent, often opposing, conclusions from the same data and question, with findings systematically aligned with those beliefs. In a study in which 42 human research teams analyzed the same immigration dataset, AI agents reproduced 72% of the human ideological gap in reported effect estimates. Despite reaching opposing conclusions, it is difficult to identify clear issues in each analysis based on the final AI reports: 86% passed independent AI review and 78% passed majority human expert review. These findings suggest that the central challenge is often not flawed analyses, but selective exploration and reporting from a large space of methodologically defensible analyses. AI agents may amplify this longstanding problem by making such exploration inexpensive and scalable. To address this, we introduce the m-value (multiverse value), the probability that an analysis path would produce a claim at least as extreme as the reported one. We further introduce Agentic Bootstrap, which estimates the m-value by using AI agents to sample plausible analysis paths. Applied to the human immigration study, 13.5% of reported human analyses fell in the most extreme 5% of the analysis space (m<0.05). Scientific evidence should therefore be evaluated not only by a single reported analysis but also by its position within the distribution of analyses that could reasonably have been reported. Agentic Bootstrap makes this distribution observable and turns it into a criterion for scientific credibility.

The deployment of LLM-based agents in scientific analysis raises opposing concerns: that agents may reduce methodological diversity, or that they may amplify the analytic flexibility through which researchers reach motivated conclusions. We argue these worries target two empirically separable layers: a design layer of methodological choices, and a verdict layer in which a decision rule maps estimates to a substantive claim. We test both by running 20 independent executions of Claude Code and Codex on a prominent immigration and social-policy against a many-analysts human baseline. At the design layer, Codex matches human methodological diversity and Claude Code produces nearly three times as many specifications; both agents' effect estimates remain broadly aligned with the human consensus, and no agent model exactly matches any human model. A prompt-induced anti-immigration researcher prior reorganizes each agent's methodological decisions but, unlike for biased human analysts in the same data, does not shift aggregate estimates or final verdicts; nor do agents reroute along the methodological axes humans use to bias their estimates. At the verdict layer, an explicit confirmatory prompt flips Claude Code's verdicts from 10% to 90% support while leaving its coefficient distribution essentially unchanged, operating through rule omission rather than rule softening. AI agents can rival or exceed human methodological diversity at the design layer while remaining vulnerable at the verdict layer. In our setting, the locus of AI bias is not estimation but interpretation.

Reproducible and analytically robust research findings are essential to scientific progress, but evaluating these properties typically requires costly manual effort. We investigate whether LLM agents can help automate reproduction and robustness analysis, using a medical case study grounded in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, a widely used U.S. cancer registry underlying tens of thousands of published studies. First, we introduce SEER-Repro, a benchmark of 20 published SEER-based papers together with the data and resources required to reproduce their findings. Second, we create an AI agent that successfully reproduces 77.4% of 2,190 atomic claims, while providing executable baselines for further analysis. Third, we develop an agentic analysis pipeline to test the robustness of the medical findings by identifying analytical choices underlying each finding, proposing defensible alternatives, and rerunning the analysis to determine whether those choices affect the conclusion. Across published papers in SEER-Repro, our pipeline identifies potentially consequential analytical choices in 9.5% of fully reproduced findings and flags them for expert review. These results show how LLM agents can support scientific review by reproducing findings, systematically testing their robustness, and directing expert attention toward potentially consequential analytical choices.