TianJi-Environ: An Autonomous AI Scientist for Atmospheric Environmental Research

Weather forecasting foundation models (FMs) are increasingly fine-tuned to predict air quality, offering fast global pollution forecasts at lower computational cost than conventional chemical transport models. These FMs are typically trained on reanalysis data and generate forecasts through autoregressive rollout. They do not explicitly represent governing physical or chemical processes. Therefore, high forecast skill does not reveal whether a model has learned physical mechanisms or exploits statistical regularities in its training data. Here, we present the first study of what a FM fine-tuned for atmospheric chemistry has learned by examining Microsoft's Aurora model. We impose controlled chemical perturbations on its forecasts and test them against known photochemical relationships. We then examine the internal representations that generate these forecasts. We find that Aurora captures a first-order ozone response to reactive nitrogen but does not enforce the chemical constraints that a process-based model encodes. It generates chemically inconsistent combinations of related species and relaxes localized emission features such as wildfire plumes toward background. Internally, its representations remain largely organized around the meteorology inherited during pretraining, with little structure specific to chemistry. Using sparse autoencoders, we identify internal components that causally control the chemical forecast but do not map cleanly onto individual atmospheric processes. This work provides a framework for testing whether AI forecasting systems learn atmospheric chemistry from reanalysis data. As these models are increasingly positioned to inform environmental policy decisions, we argue that composition forecasts should also be judged by their internal mechanisms rather than by benchmark skill alone.

AI systems can increasingly automate scientific workflows, but the reasoning that links prior evidence, generated ideas, experiments and final claims often remains implicit inside model inference. Here we introduce Xcientist, a research harness that externalizes research synthesis and experimental validation into inspectable, contract-governed processes. Xcientist organizes literature evidence, idea states, implementation plans, ablation records and repair traces as persistent research artifacts, so that generated mechanisms can be grounded, executed, tested and revised without losing their evidential basis. We identify claim drift as a failure mode of automated research, where runnable artifacts no longer support the mechanism originally claimed. Across training-free memory systems, graph-structured traffic forecasting and multi-scale physics-informed neural networks, Xcientist preserves traceable trajectories from problem formulation to mechanism design, validation and bounded revision. These results suggest that AI scientists should be evaluated not only by their final artifacts, but by whether their synthesis and validation processes remain attributable, inspectable and scientifically accountable.

AI scientist systems are described as tools, coauthors, or founders, but we evaluate them as if only the final answer matters. This position paper argues that outcome-only evaluation is insufficient, and that task outcome, mechanism fidelity, and epistemic honesty must be measured separately. Our evidence comes from 28 episodes of a coding agent attempting to rediscover a known particle identification observable in a Geant4 simulation, including an 8-episode probe across two additional frontier models. In 4/20 primary-model and 3/8 cross-model episodes, agents reach right-looking results through incorrect reasoning that breaks when conditions change, which we call Correct Answer, Wrong Mechanism (CAWM). Honesty and mechanism fidelity dissociate within a single agent trajectory. When given a partially misleading prior, all five agents reject the false component on evidence, yet one defends its chosen observable with physics inconsistent with its own data. In the simulation-based discovery setting studied here, coding agents prove reliable tools but unreliable scientific co-authors for open-ended claim-making, where co-author trust requires mechanism-fidelity verification they do not reliably self-apply. The failure is detectable, and we propose a lightweight test. A one-step regime-shift check needs only the agent's claim and flags the over-generalized cases. A companion recomputation flags the remaining cases when the correct observable is known. Together, these checks flag every CAWM case in this study.