Autoresearch agents now propose, evaluate, and select scientific candidates against a metric, and that metric is usually an aggregate reduced over a heterogeneous space of regions, slices, or cohorts. We show that when scientific validity lives in that disaggregated structure, the aggregate can rank the wrong candidate first. The headline number improves while the structure underneath inverts, so a decision made on the number accepts a candidate that quietly breaks the model. The failure is not domain-specific. It appears wherever a candidate's validity is multi-dimensional but its verifier is a single reduction. We demonstrate the inversion on a fire-model task in the Ecosystem Demography model. The highest-scoring candidate and a slightly lower one are within noise of each other on global score, yet the top-scoring one collapses the protected boreal regions while the other preserves them. What separates them is the per-region behavior, not the headline number. This decision should not be left to the agent that produced the candidates. The agent optimizing the score is the last party likely to catch the score being wrong, and a prompt has no remaining turn once the agent has stopped. We move the decision to an external control loop that audits each candidate on its disaggregated behavior and acts after the agent has decided. It can demote a candidate the agent would have accepted, and it can reopen a run the agent had declared finished. Our contribution is the inversion finding itself, and a search-discipline protocol that decides on reviewable candidate-effect evidence instead of the score.
Multi-agent systems have shown strong performance in domains with reliable verifiers such as coding, where multi-parallel candidate generation selected by a verifier is effective. However, such pipelines would not generalize to open-ended, long-horizon research tasks without a verifier. While majority voting or self-consistency is often used to reach consensus as a proxy verifier, parallel agents repeatedly explore the same evidence, while access to peers' partial findings cause search to converge on an early candidate before alternatives are tested. We present ArcticSwarm, a multi-agent research architecture that separates evidence gathering from evidence integration. Subagents publish findings to a shared bulletin board, while gated isolation lets selected search tasks maintain their own prior, preventing early consensus. Structured review at three commitment boundaries enforce only confident candidates to be propagated. As a result, ArcticSwarm reaches 82.6% on the full BrowseComp-Plus set with the open-weight Qwen 3.5-27B model, compared with 78.8% without gated isolation and 74.5% additionally with structured review disabled, outperforming aligned baseline MiroFlow runs (70.6%). Extending to live-web BrowseComp, ArcticSwarm reaches 73.6% with GPT-5, which is well above the reported provider system (54.9%) and MiroFlow (63.4%). Overall, the results show that restricting peer reads during evidence gathering and strengthening commitment boundaries before a hypothesis is shared can broaden search and improve long-horizon multi-agent deep research.
Large language model agents have shown promising capabilities in data-driven scientific discovery tasks, where an agent interacts with an execution environment and produces a statistical claim. Long-horizon scientific analysis remains constrained by the lack of process supervised environments over real-world scientific data. This paper introduces SciDisco, a scalable framework for training Scientific Discovery agents in process-verifiable environments. SciThèque compiles hypotheses, datasets, hidden evidence graphs, and verifiers into task environments where analytical progress can be checked during interaction. DAG-grounded trajectory synthesis uses these environments to construct verifier-filtered multi-turn demonstrations. DiscoPO then uses the environment as the source of training signal, assigning turn-level credit to actions that produce verifiable analytical evidence. Experiments show that SciDisco-14B reaches state-of-the-art on hypothesis-driven scientific data analysis benchmarks.
Agent benchmarks increasingly evaluate repository editing, web research, terminal use, and long-horizon interaction. Their scores support capability claims only when the evaluation protocol keeps the intended capability necessary for success. Recent reward-hacking benchmarks and system reports show that agents can instead recover public solutions, read evaluation artifacts, infer generator structure, manipulate feedback, or benefit from invalid scoring paths; existing responses do not provide a common procedure for attributing these shortcuts and quantifying their effect across benchmarks. We formulate protocol validity and introduce HackDetect, a post-hoc audit that identifies an exposure, determines how the agent used it, and assesses whether the resulting score is misleading. We quantify score inflation with the Mislead gap, defined as the exploit score minus the intended score. We audit 2,385 traces across 15 agent benchmarks and find evidence of exposures and reward hacking in 67.0% of Frontier Science traces and 66.7% of AutoLab tasks. Across paired comparisons, we measure score inflation of 0.45-1.00, showing that benchmark reports should provide evidence that scores reflect the intended capability.