Scientific agents must learn not only how to reason, but also what to believe. However, existing LLM agents typically express scientific hypotheses in free-form text, leaving their beliefs implicit and difficult to test or revise. We introduce EvoSCM, which equips scientific agents with explicit structural causal models that evolve as new experimental evidence is collected. EvoSCM maintains a population of competing SCM hypotheses, each encoding a candidate causal explanation of the environment, and evolves them through a closed discovery loop. In each round, the agent abduces latent mechanisms from accumulated evidence, designs discriminative interventions, and commits to falsifiable predictions that it tests through experimentation. Discrepancies between prediction and observation are inductively distilled into correction rules that revise the causal structures and mechanisms of each hypothesis, and the agent then deductively validates the revised population against accumulated evidence and structural consistency to guide the next round. We evaluate EvoSCM on DiscoverPhysics, a benchmark requiring agents to uncover the hidden dynamics of noncanonical physical worlds through experimentation. EvoSCM consistently improves scientific discovery over baselines, yielding more accurate explanations and predictions while making more effective use of experimental interactions.
The convergence of large language models and agents is catalyzing a new era of scientific discovery: Agentic Science. However, common agent infrastructure is repeatedly rebuilt across scientific fields (loop fragmentation) and useful evidence and experience are lost in long-horizon research (loop discontinuity), bringing obstacles to Agentic Science at Scale. We introduce EvoMaster, a foundational evolving agent framework for Agentic Science at Scale. EvoMaster handles loop fragmentation and loop discontinuity by implementing Loop Research in which external evidence persists and improves later decisions. Through three nested loops, Execution, Exploration and Evolution (E3), loop research connects research within runs, across experiments and across studies. Across ten benchmarks spanning scientific research, coding and reasoning, EvoMaster achieves the best score among four agents using GPT-5.4, reaching a mean score of 58.02%, and outperforms the strongest competing agent Codex(40.29%) while costing 35.6% less. These results show that a shared loop-research foundation can support diverse scientific agents at scale.
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.
We introduce CausaLab, a scalable environment for evaluating interactive causal discovery by LLM agents. Unlike prior evaluations, CausaLab evaluates both whether an agent can solve a problem using causal evidence and whether its answer is grounded in a faithful recovered causal mechanism. Each episode places an agent in a synthetic laboratory: it receives prior measurement records, intervenes on a manipulator crystal, and predicts the resonance frequency of a held-out reactor crystal governed by the same mechanism. The hidden data-generating process is a randomly sampled structural causal model (SCM), so success requires recovering both a causal graph and structural equations rather than recalling prior knowledge. Experiments show a persistent gap between prediction and mechanism recovery: in the purely observational 6-node setting, GPT-5.2-high reaches 92% task accuracy but only 0.471 all-edge F1. Mixed observation-intervention strategies improve structural fidelity, while pure intervention remains difficult even for strong agents. We identify premature stopping as a major weakness and show that consistency verification mitigates it. CausaLab therefore separates predictive success from causal understanding and exposes current LLM agents' limits as experimental causal reasoners.