Minimum Description Length Unsupervisedly Separates Law-Grade from Statistical-Grade Knowledge in a Self-Improving Science Agent - and Reveals 86% of Its Own Discoveries Are Statistical

Reliable automated research requires agents to vet data, verify analyses, and generate hypotheses grounded in trustworthy evidence, potentially reducing routine scientific workload while allowing scientists to focus on interpretation and discovery. Existing benchmarks often only assess analytical task completion or hypothesis generation separately rather than testing whether reliable evidence supports valid and novel claims. We introduce DISCERN (Data Integrity and Scientific Capability: Evidence, Reasoning, and Novelty), a controlled benchmark on real, publicly available datasets that evaluates three key levels of an automated research workflow. The first two levels test data integrity and analysis verification under confounds and tool traps, while the third tests hypothesis generation and revision under adversarial review, including counterfactual cases in which evidence consistent with real data and documented scientific phenomena conflicts with established expectations, motivating alternative explanations and testable hypotheses. Across 203 tasks, eight life-science tracks, and eight models, DISCERN shows that strong aggregate performance can mask level-specific weaknesses. Agents earn perfect scores in only 60.8% of Level 1, 34.2% of Level 2, and 0.6% of Level 3 evaluations, with penalties attributed to rejection of sound data, failure to carry recognized limitations into conclusions, and wide variation in hypothesis production. Cross-track rankings by token and code use are substantially more stable than rankings by evidence judgment, suggesting greater consistency in computational effort than in evidence-based reasoning. These profiles identify opportunities for supervised scientific assistance, but current agents do not yet demonstrate reliable autonomous analysis or discovery. Code and data: https://huggingface.co/datasets/discern-bench-anon/discern-benchmark

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.

Can AI systems discover genuinely new knowledge through iterative self improvement, and if so, at what cost? We introduce the NOVA framework, which models the common ``generate, verify, accumulate, retrain'' loop as an adaptive sampling process over a knowledge space. We identify sufficient conditions under which accumulated genuine knowledge eventually covers a finite domain, and show how their violations produce distinct failure modes: contamination, forgetting, exploration failure, and acceptance failure. We then analyze imperfect verification and identify a contamination trap: as easy-to-find knowledge is exhausted, the model mass assigned to new valid artifacts shrinks, so even small false-positive rates can cause invalid artifacts to enter the knowledge base faster than genuine discoveries. We clarify that Good--Turing estimation is a local batch-diversity diagnostic, not an estimator of the historically undiscovered valid mass that governs long-term discovery. Under a separate tail-equivalence assumption relating the model's effective discovery distribution to a Zipf law with exponent $α>1$, we prove that the cumulative generation cost required to obtain $D$ distinct genuine discoveries satisfies $R_{\mathrm{cum}}(D)=Θ(c_{\mathrm{gen}}D^α)$, where $c_{\mathrm{gen}}$ is the per-candidate generation cost. This scaling law quantifies asymptotic diminishing returns as the discovery frontier advances. Finally, we formalize human amplification through guidance, generation, and verification, explaining why expert input is most valuable near autonomous exploration barriers.