Compressing the Validation Bottleneck: An Agentic Self-Driving Lab for Scientific Discovery

Self-driving laboratories (SDLs) combine automated experimentation with adaptive decision-making to accelerate scientific discovery. Their operation nevertheless often depends on human specialists who translate scientific objectives into executable closed-loop campaigns. Specialists adjust them as data and operating conditions change. Here, we present La Agente 'Optima, an agentic framework that constructs and supervises Bayesian optimization campaigns across computational and experimental systems while maintaining a persistent optimization state. By separating large language model (LLM) reasoning from executed campaigns, 'Optima runs repetitive optimization loops consistently, returns control to the agent only when progress requires interpretation or campaign revision, and keeps every decision auditable. We evaluate 'Optima across ablation studies, five digital discovery tasks, and two physical platforms. Throughout, 'Optima maintained executable campaigns as both the scientific problem and execution environment evolved. In a closed-loop contact angle optimization campaign, 'Optima identified and corrected a mid-run measurement failure, bringing the contact angle from 71.4 to 67.8 degrees, just above the 64-66 degree range. From this result, 'Optima correctly inferred that the target was likely unattainable with the available reagents and recommended changing the formulation. In a five-day multi-objective flow-chemistry campaign, 'Optima increased the yield from 30% to 59% over 23 experiments. Despite substantial inference costs, it cost less and used substantially less starting material than a human-directed campaign, while selecting a more mass-efficient operating point. These results show that LLM-based agents can make rigorous, long-running optimization campaigns accessible to domain scientists without specialist setup, expanding the scope of SDLs.

Scientific research proceeds through iterative cycles of hypothesis generation, experiment design, execution, and revision. AI agents can automate parts of this process, but existing approaches typically follow a single research trajectory or coordinate through a central planner with fixed objectives. As a result, they struggle to sustain parallel exploration, adapt as experimental evidence changes, or preserve knowledge of failed directions over long-running experiments. We introduce AutoScientists, a decentralized team of AI agents for long-running computational scientific experimentation. Agents interpret a shared experimental state, self-organize into teams around promising hypotheses, critique proposals before using experimental compute, and share successes and failures to reduce redundant exploration. Under matched experimental budgets, AutoScientists improves over prior AI agents across biomedical machine learning, language-model training optimization, and protein fitness prediction. On BioML-Bench, spanning biomedical imaging, protein engineering, single-cell omics, and drug discovery, AutoScientists achieves a mean leaderboard percentile of 74.4% across 24 tasks, improving over the strongest AI agent by +8.33%. On GPT training optimization, AutoScientists reaches a target validation bits-per-byte 1.9x faster than Autoresearch and continues discovering improvements from a starting champion where the single-agent approach finds none (7 vs. 0 accepted improvements). On ProteinGym fitness prediction, AutoScientists discovers a method for ACE2-Spike binding that improves over the current state-of-the-art model by +12.5% in Spearman correlation. Applied without modification across all 217 ProteinGym assays, the same method improves over the prior state of the art by +6.5% (Spearman correlation).

LLM-based agents are rapidly being adopted for scientific data analysis, automating tasks once limited by human time and expertise. This capability is often framed as an acceleration of discovery, but it also accelerates a familiar failure mode, the rapid production of plausible, endlessly revisable analyses that are easy to generate, effectively turning hypothesis space into candidate claims supported by selectively chosen analyses, optimized for publishable positives. Unlike software, scientific knowledge is not validated by the iterative accumulation of code and post hoc statistical support. A fluent explanation or a significant result on a single dataset is not verification. Because the missing evidence is a negative space, experiments and analyses that would have falsified the claim were never run or never published. We therefore propose that non-experimental claims produced with agentic assistance be evaluated under a falsification-first standard: agents should not be used primarily to craft the most compelling narrative, but to actively search for the ways in which the claim can fail.