Physics-Audited Agentic Discovery in Scientific Machine Learning

Scientific machine-learning (SciML) surrogates approximate expensive simulations, but exact expected outputs for arbitrary inputs are unavailable (the oracle problem). Metamorphic testing checks relations across executions, yet a candidate relation is not automatically valid: its preconditions, output mapping, and the numerical floor of the scoring operator determine whether a violation is meaningful. We study how candidate metamorphic relations (MRs) can be screened for domain validity and turned into executable, oracle-free test assets for SciML surrogates. We propose (i) a domain-validity rubric that admits a candidate only when its tolerance dominates the operator's numerical floor and its preconditions hold; (ii) an MR-card executable-asset format recording source cases, transformations, metrics, tolerances, and typed relation-level verdicts; and (iii) a case-study protocol on MeshGraphNets cylinder-flow surrogates, with a claim ledger binding every result to a tracked artifact. On a MeshGraphNets checkpoint, node permutation holds to machine precision, mirror-y is a bounded out-of-distribution stress finding rather than an exact symmetry, and absolute conservation stays deferred while a reference-relative guard passes. The same readings hold across held-out trajectories, a checkpoint roster, three further architectures, and PhysicsNeMo. On a second CFD task (compressible airfoil) the predicate instead rejects incompressible continuity on physical grounds, showing it reasons about domain validity rather than running a fixed checklist. On a second PDE family, FNO Burgers and heat surrogates run full admit/reject/execute verdicts. The evidence spans two CFD tasks and a second PDE family, supporting a validity-aware bridge from candidate MRs to auditable SciML test assets that separates model-level violations from out-of-domain applications.

Large language model (LLM)-based systems are increasingly deployed to conduct scientific research autonomously, yet whether their reasoning adheres to the epistemic norms that make scientific inquiry self-correcting is poorly understood. Here, we evaluate LLM-based scientific agents across eight domains, spanning workflow execution to hypothesis-driven inquiry, through more than 25,000 agent runs and two complementary lenses: (i) a systematic performance analysis that decomposes the contributions of the base model and the agent scaffold, and (ii) a behavioral analysis of the epistemological structure of agent reasoning. We observe that the base model is the primary determinant of both performance and behavior, accounting for 41.4% of explained variance versus 1.5% for the scaffold. Across all configurations, evidence is ignored in 68% of traces, refutation-driven belief revision occurs in 26%, and convergent multi-test evidence is rare. The same reasoning pattern appears whether the agent executes a computational workflow or conducts hypothesis-driven inquiry. They persist even when agents receive near-complete successful reasoning trajectories as context, and the resulting unreliability compounds across repeated trials in epistemically demanding domains. Thus, current LLM-based agents execute scientific workflows but do not exhibit the epistemic patterns that characterize scientific reasoning. Outcome-based evaluation cannot detect these failures, and scaffold engineering alone cannot repair them. Until reasoning itself becomes a training target, the scientific knowledge produced by such agents cannot be justified by the process that generated it.

Frontier LLMs now perform strongly across a wide range of physics evaluations, but it is hard to disentangle genuine reasoning from recall of established science. We introduce DiscoverPhysics, an interactive benchmark that asks a LLM agent to discover the laws of motion of a simulated world whose physics deliberately deviates from our own. We construct 22 worlds governed by, among others, screened and fractional-power gravity, multi-species couplings, hidden dark-matter-like particles, non-coordinate-free physics, and time-varying interactions. Each world is generated on demand by an N-body simulator, for which the agent proposes several rounds of experiments, observes raw trajectory data, and ultimately submits both a natural-language explanation of the world's physics and a Python implementation of the inferred law. Because solving a world requires the agent to design informative experiments and revise its hypotheses, the benchmark probes long-horizon reasoning over an experimental history. We evaluate submissions along two complementary axes: trajectory MSE on held-out particles and an LLM-judged explanation score following an expert-written rubric assessing conceptual understanding of each world. Across eleven frontier models, we find that the strongest agents pass only half of the worlds and consistently fail on those where latent structure must be uncovered. Open-source models lag substantially behind commercial models, both in their ability to design informative experiments and in extracting conclusions from the data. We further find that good predictive accuracy does not guarantee high explanation quality and that conceptual understanding depends on hypothesis refinement through well-chosen experiments.