Scientific Agents

Scientific discovery is defined by the ability to identify the boundaries of existing knowledge and venture into unexplored territory. The ultimate vision for AI in science is problem-driven autonomous research: given a fundamental challenge by a human expert, the AI independently navigates the scientific landscape, uncovers theoretical and empirical bottlenecks, and systematically expands the frontier of knowledge. In this paper, we introduce ScientistTwo, a fully autonomous multi-agent framework designed to realize this vision. Specifically, ScientistTwo takes an initial problem as input, establishes state-of-the-art baselines, formulates novel hypotheses, and coordinates specialized agents to orchestrate an end-to-end discovery cycle without human intervention. Moreover, the framework rigorously conducts experiments using diverse datasets and metrics, refines methodologies through automated ablation studies, and validates research findings via a closed-loop simulated peer-review rebuttal engine. To evaluate ScientistTwo's capabilities against the highest standards of human scientific achievement, we benchmark it across papers accepted at top-tier conferences such as ICLR, ICML, and NeurIPS. As a result, ScientistTwo autonomously generates expert-level, publishable papers and fully verified, executable codebases. Its solutions consistently outperform human state-of-the-art models, and achieve higher average review ratings than human-authored papers under automated AI review agents. These results show that ScientistTwo is not merely an assistive tool but an autonomous scientific pioneer capable of pushing the frontiers of human discovery. Project website: https://scientist-two.github.io/

Autonomous research agents aim to automate scientific workflows, from proposing ideas to conducting experiments and analyzing results. Yet current AI and research agents can propose more directions than available resources allow them to pursue. Moreover, each attempt could consume substantial resources, requiring agents to reconsider how to invest in subsequent research. Thus, deciding how to invest research effort strategically should be a defining capability of autonomous research agents. Accordingly, we introduce PrimeScientist, which jointly determines research direction and resource investment across successive research attempts. Specifically, we formulate this challenge of strategic research effort allocation as a sequential decision problem where remaining resources should explicitly guide the research policy. We first introduce an executable plan tree that preserves competing plans and their outcomes across attempts. Building on this representation, we propose an adaptive MCTS-based allocation policy that balances exploration and exploitation using experimental feedback and remaining resources. Comprehensive evaluations across AI research, systems and code optimization, and machine learning engineering show that strategic allocation improves research quality and sample efficiency together. Across 12 AI research tasks, PrimeScientist improves average reward by 10.3% with 50.6% fewer research attempts than AutoResearch under the same resource budget. We believe making research effort allocation an explicit optimization target establishes effective resource use as a core research capability for autonomous agents to drive scientific breakthroughs at scale.

We introduce and release ScienceBuddy, an interactive scientific research workspace that brings continually improving scientific agents into researchers' everyday workflows. ScienceBuddy supports researchers in carrying out scientific tasks while transforming their requests, feedback, and execution evidence into tasks and evaluation rubrics for continual learning. At its core is recursive-in-recursive self-improvement, a paradigm that couples harness evolution with model reinforcement learning: the inner recursion improves the harness with the model fixed, while the outer recursion trains the model under the improved harness. Harness evolution shapes training experience, and model learning creates new opportunities for harness adaptation. We present case studies of researcher interaction, harness refinement, and model learning, with the benchmark cases spanning four scientific task families. By releasing ScienceBuddy as a research product, we make this paradigm available to the scientific community and take a step toward discovery intelligence: scientific AI that advances through sustained collaboration with researchers and evolves alongside the research it supports. Website: http://science-buddy.io

Scientific agents contribute to hypothesis discovery by synthesizing evidence, assessing proposals, and developing new explanations. Recent systems combine scientific agents with evolutionary search through critique, comparison, and revision. However, how different forms of agent collaboration affect hypothesis quality remains an open question. Answering this question requires separating the effects of agents' scientific capabilities from those of their collaboration. A framework must therefore preserve agents' scientific roles and support rules for combining, revising, and retaining hypotheses. Building on this view, we introduce HypoEvolve, which makes collaboration explicit through successive updates to a hypothesis population. Specifically, we propose a generational genetic algorithm to coordinate specialized large language model (LLM) agents that integrate mechanistic arguments, reconsider assumptions, and assess evidence and testability. Each generation specifies how scientific judgments and new proposals reshape the population, making collaboration effects on hypothesis quality directly testable. Moreover, we design our evaluation around scientifically meaningful hypotheses that explain how a proposed intervention could work. Drug repurposing links these explanations to target-level biological claims assessed against external evidence. Specifically, we adapt DepMap and Open Targets into complementary external measures grounded in experimental, genetic, and clinical evidence. Across 34 cancer types, HypoEvolve achieves the highest scores against six baselines on both measures. DepMap selectivity reaches 0.171, versus 0.115 for the strongest baseline. Gains over single-pass generation also generalize to held-out cancer types. HypoEvolve advances a vision of autonomous science in which AI research teams achieve a capacity for discovery beyond that of individual models.

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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) trained on extensive scientific research are increasingly integrated as assistants for scientific discovery. However, most research papers omit the fine-grained cognitive process of examining constraints, failed alternatives, and iterative decisions required to achieve the desired goal. Such cognitive processes are vital for real-world scientists working toward specific goals under constraints. In this paper, we show that LLMs, when trained to produce such cognitive traces, perform better as scientific discovery assistants than when trained solely on scientific literature. We propose COGTRL, a trajectory-level reinforcement learning framework that trains LLMs to emulate cognitively grounded reasoning by jointly optimizing cognitive traces and the scientific steps produced in an interleaved manner. Across two 3B-parameter models and two scientific domains (AI and Materials Science), COGTRL improves method quality by an average of 7.85 points over comparable 3B model baselines and achieves competitive performance relative to 70B parameter models. Moreover, analysis by domain experts shows a preference for methods generated by COGTRL over the baselines.

A language-model agent asked to analyse an experiment will usually return working code. Whether the analysis is defensible is a different question. A defensible analysis depends on procedural choices: which test the field accepts, which identifier namespace is authoritative, and which caveats must accompany a result. We present Scientific Agent Skills, an open library of 163 such procedures in 16 areas of practice, including genomics, cheminformatics, medical imaging, study design and scientific communication. Each skill is a directory built around a versioned, human-readable instruction file. An agent loads the file only when a task calls for it; the directory often also contains reference material and runnable scripts. We report no task-level evaluation and no host selection rate. We measure two properties of the documentation corpus: the always-resident descriptions of all 163 skills cost 7.1% of a 200,000-token window, and the median documented workflow fits within 23.9% of it, although 29 of 46 would overflow if every reference file were loaded. Openly licensed and available at https://github.com/K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills.

Scientific agents increasingly analyze data, execute code, and produce research artifacts, yet most benchmarks emphasize final answers, isolated programs, or a single domain. We introduce FrontierChallenge, a cross-domain benchmark comprising 300 end-to-end scientific workflows. In this paper, we release and evaluate 97 of these tasks, spanning quantum chemistry, molecular dynamics, materials characterization, analytical chemistry, life science, and electrochemistry/environment. Each task provides fixed inputs and specifies a bundle of required scientific deliverables. We evaluate twelve frontier models with three agent scaffolds. Pass Rate measures the fraction of tasks satisfying the full-completion criterion, while Avg. Score captures partial progress. Each of the best-performing configurations completed only 20 of the 97 released tasks, yielding a Pass Rate of 20.6%. Partial progress translated especially poorly into complete delivery in analytical chemistry and electrochemistry/environment: Avg. Scores reached 87.6 and 94.9, but the highest Pass Rates were only 4% and 0%. Among non-passing Claude Code trajectories, 75.5% still ended with language claiming completion. Complementary HDS6 process scores correlate strongly with task outcomes, supporting FrontierChallenge as a benchmark of Heavy Duty Solver capabilities. These findings show that neither high partial scores nor confident claims of completion reliably indicate that a scientific task has been fully delivered, highlighting the need to evaluate end-to-end workflow execution and the completeness of scientific deliverables together.

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.

We investigate how well large language models (LLMs) can assist scientific project planning and proposal evaluation. One-page project plans were independently generated for eight expert-conceived research projects in physics, astrophysics, and cosmology by human researchers and three contemporary LLMs (ChatGPT, Claude, and DeepSeek; mid-2025 models, used with their default tool access). The resulting 32 proposals were blindly evaluated by four human reviewers and two newer frontier LLMs (Claude Opus 4.8 and ChatGPT Pro 5.5) using a four-aspect evaluation rubric. Reviewers were also asked to identify whether each proposal was written by a human or an AI. Human reviewers rated human- and AI-written proposals similarly overall, whereas both AI reviewers scored AI-written proposals about one point higher (on a five-point scale) than human-written proposals. Human reviewers correctly identified human- and AI-written proposals 72% and 79% of the time, respectively, while both AI reviewers correctly classified all 32 proposals (100%). These results suggest that current LLMs can produce project plans comparable to human-written ones in the eyes of human reviewers, but that AI reviewers show a systematic preference for AI-generated proposals. Our results suggest caution when deploying LLMs widely in proposal preparation and evaluation.

We investigate how well large language models (LLMs) can assist with literature reviews for scientific research. We perform a controlled study of eight expert-conceived research projects across the areas of physics, astrophysics, and cosmology. Each project has a defined background and goal, and human experts and AI prompters are asked to perform identical literature review tasks in parallel. We compare the relevant literature selected by humans with that selected by mid-2025 LLMs (ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT Deep Research, and Gemini). We find the overlap between human- and AI-selected references to be small ($<$6%), indicating that AI models do not yet reproduce a competent expert search on their own, though they have the potential to complement literature searches by humans. We then assess the reliability and completeness of AI-generated candidate references, distinguishing two types of hallucination: fabrications (references to nonexistent papers) and metadata mismatches (real papers with one or more incorrect fields). We find that while fabricated references make up 3% of the AI-generated references, 64% are real papers with at least one incorrect field (title, author, year, journal, DOI, or link), indicating that the mid-2025 models require systematic verification. However, the performance is significantly improved for the 2026 model ChatGPT Pro 5.5, with a single-project test showing zero fabrication or metadata mismatches.

We introduce an extremal invariant associated with Chowla-type order conditions in finite groups. A nonempty subset $S$ of a finite group $G$ is called a Chowla set if every element of $S$ has order greater than $|S|$, and we write $C(G)$ for the maximum cardinality of such a set. We first show that $C(G)$ is determined by the distribution of element orders in $G$. For cyclic groups, we derive an exact divisor formula and characterize the integers $n$ for which $C(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})=\varphi(n)$. We prove that $\liminf_{n\to\infty}C(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})/\varphi(n)=1$, whereas $\limsup_{n\to\infty}C(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})/\varphi(n)=\infty$, and we determine the corresponding lower and upper limits under normalization by $n$. For finite abelian groups, we obtain an explicit formula in terms of the invariant-factor decomposition, together with a closed formula for finite abelian $p$-groups. We then develop a linear analogue for finite field extensions. A nonzero $K$-subspace $A$ of an extension $L/K$ is called a Chowla subspace if $[K(a):K]>\dim_K A$ for every nonzero $a\in A$. Since this condition depends on $\dim_K A$, it does not generally require every nonzero element of $A$ to generate $L$ over $K$. Nevertheless, when $L/K$ is finite and separable, we prove the exact formula $C(L/K)=[L:K]-d_{\max}(L/K)$, where $d_{\max}(L/K)$ is the largest degree over $K$ of a proper intermediate field. For finite fields, we give a direct proof in every degree using a normal-basis construction. This work was developed through an expert-guided human-AI collaboration. A reasoning-focused configuration of Co-Scientist was used to explore examples and potential proof strategies. The authors formulated the problem, independently verified and completed all arguments, and wrote the final proofs.

AI weather models are in the process of revolutionising weather forecasting. While these models have been shown to achieve superior performance to physics-based NWP in forecasting tropical cyclone (TC) tracks, they tend to dramatically underestimate intensity. Here we present AIFS-TC, a simple correction to the AIFS-Single model that is competitive with the operational state-of-the-art for forecasting maximum wind speed and minimum central pressure at lead times of 12 h to seven days. This performance also holds for rapid intensification events. Notably, the entire system was autonomously designed and built by a large language model (Claude Fable 5) in a few hours, directed through a small number of natural-language prompts by a single domain scientist. That the operational frontier can be reached with an open-source AI forecast model (AIFS-Single) and relatively simple, cheap post-processing is significant for TC science, and points to agentic coding as a route to rapid exploration and progress in life-saving early-warning systems in other domains.

Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly and significantly entered scientific workflows, but it remains unclear how their diffusion is associated with changes in scientists' strategies in research directions and team building. We link PubMed Central full text with OpenAlex publication and collaboration histories for 775,323 scientists and analyze CRediT contribution statements from 137,120 multi-author papers. After 2022, scientists increasingly published across more intellectually distant fields and entered fields in which they had not previously worked. These increases in interdisciplinarity and exploration were especially pronounced among established scientists and scientists from non-English-speaking low- and middle-income countries. Authors with stronger AI-writing signals were already more interdisciplinary and exploratory before the widespread adoption of LLMs, and the gap widened further after 2022 compared with authors with weaker AI-writing signals. Scientists' collaboration networks also became more interdisciplinary after 2022. Yet, among authors with stronger AI-writing signals, research interdisciplinarity was less closely tied to the disciplinary diversity of their collaborators. The division of labor within research teams also became more differentiated. Contributors on papers published after 2022 reported narrower role sets on average, coauthors shared fewer roles in common, and their role profiles became less rigid and more fluid. Software and validation roles increased, while conceptual and management roles decreased. These patterns suggest that team members are taking on more distinct responsibilities and may rely less on one another to perform research tasks. Overall, this study indicates that the LLM era coincides with a broader reorganization of scientific exploration, collaboration, and the division of labor.

Visual diagrams, figures, and tables are central to scientific papers, and convey information beyond what is captured in text. While blind or low-vision (BLV) scientists have traditionally relied on static alternative text to access figures in papers, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has made interactive question-answering (QA) a feasible paradigm for visual exploration; yet little is known about how scientists use visual QA in practice or how to improve its accessibility. In this work, we interview five BLV and five sighted scientists across different STEM fields to understand how they use two AI tools, ChatGPT and Gemini, to query multimodal scientific documents. Our findings characterize how scientists review multimodal content, including existing practices (along with accessibility workarounds) for engaging with visuals, and feedback on the suitability of AI-generated responses to multimodal queries. We further find that vague or incomplete image descriptions, as well as incorrect AI outputs more broadly, can cause both BLV and sighted scientists to abandon AI workflows. To support future research, we additionally contribute a dataset of 115 queries and responses from our participants' interactions with the AI tools for papers in their field. We close by discussing implications for AI-powered scientific QA systems, emphasizing considerations for access across abilities and domains.

Scientists at European XFEL conduct experiments that generate very large and complex datasets. The subsequent data analysis is challenging as scientists must combine their domain expertise with facility- and software-specific knowledge scattered across documentation, tools, and support channels. To address this problem, we designed and evaluated an agentic AI system tailored to the scientists' needs and integrated with the high-performance computing environment of European XFEL. Using a design science research approach, we conducted a rapid literature review, a systematic evaluation of 16 AI tools, multiple interviews, a focus group, and a user study with experts at European XFEL to develop and evaluate two prototypes. Our study identifies key knowledge challenges in scientific data analysis, derives requirements for an AI agent that supports knowledge retrieval and source code generation, and proposes design recommendations for a specialized system adaptable to the evolving AI tool landscape. These findings provide guidance for developing maintainable AI support in highly specialized scientific environments.

Artificial intelligence has advanced scientific discovery, but most AI4Science systems remain fragmented tools that rely on humans to coordinate problem formulation, literature grounding, model use, simulation, validation, and knowledge reuse. This paper presents \textbf{SCION (Scientific Collaborative Innovation with Agentic Organizational Nexus)}, an agentic scientific operating system that acts as an \textbf{organizational nexus}. Through a Science Agent serving as a \textbf{Meta-Harness}, SCION connects scientific tasks, tools, agents, artifacts, and memory, transforming research into an executable, auditable, and reusable operational process. At its core is the \textbf{Research Execution Plan (REP)}, which compiles high-level scientific intent into staged objectives, dependencies, verification checkpoints, tool requirements, expected artifacts, and fallback conditions. SCION further integrates hierarchical multi-agent execution, profile-driven specialization, selective context construction, governed delegation, and layered epistemic memory to support long-horizon scientific work. We formulate discovery under SCION as \textbf{Target-conditioned Inverse Search} and extend it to hidden-target settings through batch active search under finite experimental budgets. Applications in materials analysis, molecule design, and protein or antibody screening, together with experiments on scientific reading, idea generation, molecule generation, and antibody screening, show that SCION outperforms existing autonomous research-agent baselines, especially in decomposition, verification, refinement, and memory reuse. Overall, SCION shifts AI from isolated tools toward a coordinated operational layer for traceable and reusable scientific innovation.

Large language model agents are increasingly connected to scientific software, yet it remains unclear when tool access makes scientific computation more reliable rather than merely more complex. We introduce PHREEQC-MCQ-200, a benchmark for evaluating tool-augmented agents on deterministic aqueous-geochemistry simulations. The benchmark contains 200 multiple-choice questions derived from 21 validated PHREEQC scenarios, requiring agents to construct simulator inputs, execute PHREEQC, inspect structured outputs, and commit to final answers. Across multiple frontier and mid-tier model families, simulator access substantially improves aggregate accuracy, confirming that grounded execution is necessary for many scientific-computation tasks. However, the gains are not monotonic: tool-augmented agents also lose items they answered correctly without tools, revealing regressions that average accuracy alone hides. We further show that output-access protocol matters. A table-of-contents interface can reduce token cost while preserving or improving accuracy for stronger models, but it degrades performance for mid-tier models that cannot reliably navigate structured simulator outputs. PHREEQC-MCQ-200 therefore frames scientific tool use as an end-to-end diagnostic problem rather than a simple tool-calling capability. We argue that evaluations of scientific agents should report not only accuracy, but also item-level retention, output-access sensitivity, trajectory failures, and where the computation chain breaks.

High-throughput plant phenotyping now generates image derived datasets far faster than scientists can analyze them. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Advanced Plant Phenotyping Laboratory (APPL), automated stations image hundreds of plants daily across multiple remote sensing modalities; yet, trait extraction and interpretation remain manual, expert-bound, and strictly post-hoc, making analysis, not acquisition, the binding constraint on discovery. We present an end-to-end agentic AI framework that turns the facility from a data factory into an interactive autonomous, discovery platform, where scientists partner with AI agents to accelerate time to insight. A conversational Co-Scientist Agent translates a scientist's natural-language question into a structured analysis plan, and a headless Compute Agent dispatches Vision Transformer segmentation and trait extraction on the Frontier exascale supercomputer. The two agents run in separate security and resource domains and communicate over a secure, token-authenticated streaming channel, a design that accounts for the federation, data-movement, and provenance realities cloud-native agentic frameworks ignore, ensuring end-to-end provenance is captured for every interaction. The framework turns a days- to weeks-long analysis process into an interactive loop where agents reason over results, recommend next analyses, and respond to follow-up questions in seconds.

The automation of scientific discovery has reached an inflection point. While AI systems now operate instruments, optimize parameters and generate hypotheses, most remain procedural: they execute workflows fixed by human designers. True autonomous science demands epistemic autonomy--the capacity to construct, challenge and revise physical explanations in response to evidence. Here we introduce AHOIS, a multi-agent AI scientist that embeds Socratic midwifery into closed-loop experimentation. A physics-critic agent interrogates hypotheses through causal questioning, constraint checking, counterexample generation and falsification-criteria formulation. We evaluate AHOIS on a real multimode-fibre optical platform, a high-dimensional system with complex wave transformations, indirect detection, environmental drift and multi-modal acquisition. Without prior encoding schemes, classifiers or speckle models, the system autonomously proposed and validated a random-interference encoding hypothesis, discovered task-adaptive sparse-measurement strategies, diagnosed distinct failure modes (encoding instability, fluorescence contamination and detector noise) and translated a published imaging protocol into an executable workflow on a non-original configuration. The discovered encoding yielded 16x16 measurements with effective rank 56.9 and classification accuracies of 76.97% on MNIST and 83.17% on Fashion-MNIST. Ablations show that Socratic interrogation improves physical consistency, hypothesis completeness, uncertainty calibration and experimental-plan validity. These results establish a route from workflow automation towards evidence-grounded, self-correcting autonomous discovery in complex physical environments.

AI systems can increasingly automate scientific workflows, but the reasoning that links prior evidence, generated ideas, experiments and final claims often remains implicit inside model inference. Here we introduce Xcientist, a research harness that externalizes research synthesis and experimental validation into inspectable, contract-governed processes. Xcientist organizes literature evidence, idea states, implementation plans, ablation records and repair traces as persistent research artifacts, so that generated mechanisms can be grounded, executed, tested and revised without losing their evidential basis. We identify claim drift as a failure mode of automated research, where runnable artifacts no longer support the mechanism originally claimed. Across training-free memory systems, graph-structured traffic forecasting and multi-scale physics-informed neural networks, Xcientist preserves traceable trajectories from problem formulation to mechanism design, validation and bounded revision. These results suggest that AI scientists should be evaluated not only by their final artifacts, but by whether their synthesis and validation processes remain attributable, inspectable and scientifically accountable.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to guide research methodology, yet their default methodological tendencies under minimal prompting remain unclear. Here, we prompt GPT-5.1, Gemini 3 Pro, and DeepSeek-V3.2 with an LLM-extracted research question from each of 1,000 recent arXiv computer-science papers and compare the resulting methodology suggestions against a paper-derived experimental inventory. Since we provide only the research question, the differences we measure reflect initial suggestions and not how optimal those suggestions are. We extract structured method features from both sources, map them into a shared taxonomy, and quantify divergence across multiple taxonomy dimensions including model provider, dataset task type, and evaluation metric type. The strongest imbalance appears in provider choice, with Jensen-Shannon divergence about 3-5x larger than any other taxonomy dimension. Other/Academic single-occurrence models are underrepresented by 23-24 percentage points, while reused academic/community models are slightly overrepresented (4-6pp). LLMs also suggest a much narrower range of methods overall: the effective number of model entities contracts from 1,232 to 59-96, and inter-LLM rank correlations (0.55-0.68) generally exceed LLM-to-paper correlations (0.33-0.56), so the distortions are largely shared across models. Popularity baselines, BM25 retrieval calibration, and paper-level similarity tests confirm that the outputs are query-specific responses, but filtered through a narrower set of options. Researchers who rely on LLM suggestions without cross-checking therefore risk narrowing their methodological search space toward a more concentrated default.

We can do more than defend science from a flood of AI-assisted papers. Used well, AI offers a historic opportunity to correct distortions in the publication system, help us publish fewer and better papers, and give scientists back the time to do their best work.

As scientific workflows shift from deterministic executables to LLM-based agents, the development practices on offer, such as fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, and prompt-and-go, bury the scientist's judgment. We propose treating agent construction as a workflow stage and introduce AgentBuild, which builds a scientific agent from a contract the scientist authors. The contract is a version-controlled rubric, a difficulty-graded curriculum, and a curated external knowledge base. A rubric-driven judge gates a meta-optimizer coding agent that edits the agent within a declared boundary, so the build compiles the agent, not the scientist's judgment. We instantiate this for Rietveld refinement of X-ray diffraction data through GSAS-II behind MCP and A2A, where a blank-harness construction run progresses through a lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide (LLZO) signal-to-noise ladder, reaches the 4 hour scan as a frontier case, and exposes the workflow-scope limits that remain. The same rubric that rewards credible fits also scores trajectory scope, making the frontier a contract failure rather than a pattern-fitting failure. As base models evolve, re-running AgentBuild is a re-tune, not a rebuild, and the scientist's authored contract remains the durable asset.

Scientific discovery workflows rely heavily on lab notes, where researchers record observations, interpret uncertain results, and plan follow-up experiments. Unlike polished publications, lab notes preserve evolving scientific reasoning, tacit scientific knowledge, and author uncertainty, giving AI agents access to the process of science. However, most prior work on scientific text focuses on papers, protocols, or structured databases, leaving informal laboratory notes underexplored as inputs to AI agents for science. This gap matters because tacit knowledge in lab notes is not written as a clean set of instructions: validated observations, tentative judgments, and possible experimental next steps often appear in the same passage. If these signals are conflated, an AI agent may mistake uncertain scientific judgments for confirmed conclusions or executable actions. To this end, we present Notes2Skills, a two-stage framework for turning lab notebooks into verifiable skills for scientific AI agents while preserving the author's certainty. Across three wet-lab sessions and seven original downstream configurations, Notes2Skills is the only tested configuration that avoids both observed regime-level failures: over-acting on uncertain notes and missing firm directives. We show that certainty preservation is a key missing piece between lab notebooks and reliable agent skills, opening a path toward safer AI co-scientist systems.

Illegal logging and timber trade continue to pose significant challenges in the Philippines, where accurate wood species identification is essential for enforcement but limited by the need for specialised equipment and expertise. This study aims to evaluate whether AI models for macroscopic wood identification can be developed and deployed by wood scientists without programming expertise using the Xylorix platform, focusing on five Philippine hardwood species: Mangium (Acacia mangium Willd.), Rain Tree [Samanea saman (Jacq.) Merr.], Banuyo (Wallaceodendron celebicum Koord.), Tindalo [Afzelia rhomboidea (Blanco) Vidal], and Ipil [Intsia bijuga (Colebr.) O. Kuntze]. Binary classifiers were trained on 10,663 verified cross-section images from 260 specimens and evaluated using specimen-level mean scoring to mirror operational field conditions. Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) values ranged from 0.969 (Ipil) to 1.000 (Mangium), and Average Precision (AP) values ranged from 0.589 (Samanea) to 1.000 (Mangium). Four of five species achieved AA grade (AUC and AP both \geq 0.90); Rain Tree received AE (AUC \geq 0.90, AP < 0.60) due to AP compression from its small positive test set (3 specimens). All five classifiers rank their target specimens above non-target specimens with near-perfect fidelity. Specimen-level error analysis revealed 9 false negatives from Ipil, primarily stemming from localized image artifacts and 3 false positives for Rain Tree and 1 false positive for Tindalo caused by shared tribal-level anatomical traits. These findings demonstrate that Xylorix non-programmers can leverage the Xylorix platform to construct operationally reliable wood identification models suitable for field deployment at supply chain checkpoints.

While neural networks excel in autonomous control, their black-box nature makes control decisions difficult to interpret and diagnose in dynamic fluids. Here, we show how self-evolving scientific agents can design explicit, neural-network-free white-box controllers by iteratively interpreting simulation evidence, accumulating control knowledge and refining controller code. We demonstrate this approach on an underactuated two-joint swimmer navigating unsteady flows via joint angular accelerations. Starting from a target-blind propulsive controller, the agent gradually constructs key mechanisms, including travelling-wave propulsion, body-frame guidance, phase-selective steering, redirect bursts and adaptive relief. The resulting controllers reach targets and generalize across changes in target position, wake geometry, cylinder count, and inflow speed without revision. Moreover, 2D control priors transfer successfully to accelerate 3D adaptation. Our work demonstrates that self-evolving agents can autonomously design physically reasoned and generalizable white-box fluid control, showing a promising paradigm beyond traditional reinforcement learning and black-box neural network control.

LLM-based scientific agents have shown strong capacity for autonomous research, yet their safety layers remain structurally divorced from core reasoning: they inspect pipeline outputs rather than shaping the deliberation that produces them. This separation opens two failure modes: safety signals accumulated at one stage are discarded before the next, and sequences of individually benign tool calls can compose into harmful outcomes that no single-step filter detects. To address these challenges, we introduce \textbf{SciTrace}, a framework that weaves safety reasoning into every stage of the scientific agent pipeline. SciTrace couples two complementary mechanisms: a \textit{Safety-Intrinsic Reasoning Loop} (SIR) that maintains a cumulative risk state across the Thinker, Experimenter, Writer, and Reviewer stages through joint task-and-safety deliberation, and a \textit{Compositional Tool-Chain Verifier} (CTV) that performs trajectory-aware safety checks before execution, catching risks that surface only across multi-step tool sequences. Evaluated on 240 high-risk research tasks and 120 tool-related risk tasks spanning six scientific domains, SciTrace achieves state-of-the-art (\textbf{SOTA}) safety among compared frameworks across four backbone models: it consistently improves tool call safety and adversarial robustness while preserving scientific output quality, and it uncovers \textbf{78.8%} of the compositional tool-chain escapes that single-step monitors miss. The project website is available at https://opensciagent.github.io/SciTrace/.

A long-standing finding in the causal learning literature is that adults struggle to identify conjunctive causal rules, where an effect requires the simultaneous presence of multiple causes, while performing better in disjunctive settings. However, most demonstrations of this conjunctive handicap'' rely on passive observation paradigms with limited evidence, where learners have no control over evidence generation. This paper asks whether this bias persists when adults are granted agency through active exploration. Using a modified blicket detector'' task, adult participants freely intervened to identify causal objects under conjunctive or disjunctive rule structures. We show that active exploration substantially improves adults' conjunctive causal reasoning, although conjunctive rules still require more tests to infer than disjunctive rules. We further compare human performance to a range of large language models in the same setting. While some state-of-the-art models approach human-level performance on hypothesis inference accuracy, they often exhibit less efficient exploration strategies and similar conjunctive-disjunctive performance gaps.

Scientific research has traditionally been human-intensive, requiring researchers to coordinate literature, ideas, experiments, manuscripts, and review responses across long project cycles. The rise of LLM-based scientific agents creates an opportunity to automate this process. Such a system must support the full research lifecycle, maintain structured persistent memory across projects, and improve its own research procedures over time. However, existing systems either partially satisfy or fail to satisfy these requirements, leaving a gap for a unified automated scientific research system. As a result, we present AutoSci, a memory-centric agentic system for the full scientific research lifecycle. AutoSci is organized around four modules. SciMem provides schema-governed research memory, separating Long-Term Knowledge Memory for reusable scientific knowledge from Active Research Memory for project-level artifacts such as ideas, experiments, manuscripts, and reviews. SciFlow executes a five-stage lifecycle from literature understanding to rebuttal through a harness that controls state, context, verification, feedback, and orchestration. SciDAG augments difficult skills with DAG-shaped multi-agent operators and reusable stage-specific templates. SciEvolve converts feedback signals from users, experiments, reviews, and external environments into versioned updates to SciMem organization, SciFlow skills, and SciDAG templates. Together, these modules make AutoSci a persistent research environment that can execute, remember, and evolve across research projects. The code repository is available at https://github.com/skyllwt/AutoSci.

Are AI agents tools, co-authors, or researchers? We present a quantified case study ($N=1$): a physicist supervising an AI coding agent (Claude Code, Sonnet and Opus models) over 12 work days and 57 sessions to build CLAX-PT, a differentiable one-loop perturbation theory module in JAX. We documented and classified 15 supervision events by intervention level. The agent resolved ten autonomously by iterating against oracle tests. Two more by the physicist's domain knowledge. The three it could not -- all evaded oracle detection -- share a common property: the agent treated symptom reduction as root-cause resolution. It spent 33 of the 57 sessions adjusting coefficients within a code architecture that could not represent the target physics, and could not re-evaluate its CLASS-PT branch choice even when prompted to reconsider; only an injected physics concept (anisotropic BAO damping) triggered the redesign. Separately, the agent committed a calibrated correction that passed all oracle tests but corresponded to no quantity in the theory, predicting wrong values at any other cosmology. The fudge factor was caught and replaced within the same session. Three supervision practices proved critical for catching what oracle tests missed: testing at diverse parameter points beyond the fiducial calibration; shared changelogs that surfaced stalled exploration across sessions; and an explicit rule against unphysical numerical patches. In this case, supervision design, not model capability, determined whether the agent's output was trustworthy. Closing the gap would require agents that propose architectural alternatives rather than optimize within a given structure, and distinguish predictive adequacy from explanatory correctness -- capabilities not exhibited here, not obviously addressed by scaling alone. [Abridged.]

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).

Autonomous research agents produce competitive solutions and professional-looking manuscripts, yet their outputs contain verifiability failures undetectable by surface-level evaluation: fabricated citations, unreproducible scores, and method descriptions that diverge from the implementation. We address this through three contributions. First, Chain-of-Evidence (CoE), a verifiability framework requiring every claim to be traceable to its evidence source. Second, ScientistOne, an end-to-end autonomous research system that maintains evidence chains by construction throughout literature review, solution discovery, and paper writing. Third, CoE Audit, a post-hoc audit whose four integrity checks -- score verification, specification violation, reference verification, and method-code alignment -- apply uniformly to all systems. Across 75 papers spanning five systems and five frontier research tasks, every baseline exhibits at least one systematic failure mode: hallucinated reference rates reach 21%, score verification passes in as few as 42% of papers, and method-code alignment ranges from 20% to 80%. ScientistOne achieves zero hallucinated references (0/337), perfect score verification (12/12), and the highest method-code alignment (14/15), while matching or exceeding human expert performance on all five tasks. ScientistOne further generalizes to six additional tasks spanning medical imaging, fine-grained recognition, 3D perception, and language modeling, achieving state-of-the-art on Parameter Golf and gold medals on MLE-Bench tasks where baselines fail entirely.

Domain scientists increasingly develop Python scripts to analyze satellite imagery but they lack scalability to large-scale data. This paper demonstrates GRAIL, an agentic translation system that converts Python geospatial workflows into executable Spark-based programs without requiring scientists to learn a new framework. Rather than fine-tuning a specialized LLM model, GRAIL adapts RDPro, a Scala library for satellite data analysis, to make it LLM-ready using structured documentation, API alias functions, and repair-oriented error logs. Translation is structured as a LangGraph pipeline that decomposes code generation into explicit sections with guided inputs and outputs, enabling targeted repair without regenerating the full program. We demonstrate GRAIL on real-world geospatial workflows and showcase the correctness and scalability of the translated code.

Suppose a planner has a pre-trained simulator of a sequential decision problem and the option to run real experiments in the field. The simulator is cheap to query but inherits confounding and drift from its calibration data. Experimentation is unbiased but consumes one real unit per trial. We study when, and how, the planner should supplement the simulator with experiments. We give three results. First, an extended simulation lemma decomposes the simulator's value error into a calibration--deployment shift that randomization can identify and a parametric residual that no further interaction can reduce. Second, the value gap between the simulator-optimal policy and the optimum splits into a local component, on states the deployed policy already visits, and a reachability component, on states it does not. The reachability component stays bounded away from zero at any horizon under purely passive learning. Third, we propose Fisher-SEP, a simulation-aided experimental policy (SEP) that minimizes the posterior predictive variance of a target policy's value, with reward-only and transition-only specializations. Two case studies illustrate the regimes. In a vending-machine supply chain, front-loaded experimentation overtakes posterior updating once the horizon is long enough to amortize the pilot. In an HIV mobile-testing example with a corridor that separates a well-surveilled region from a poorly-surveilled one, only designed exploration reaches the poorly-surveilled region.

Designing multi-agent workflows is especially difficult in open-ended scientific settings where tasks lack curated training sets, reliable scalar evaluation metrics, and standardized interfaces between existing tools and agents. We propose AgentCo-op, a retrieval-based synthesis framework that composes reusable skills, tools, and external agents into executable workflows through typed artifact handoffs, then applies bounded self-guided local repair to implicated components when execution evidence indicates failure. In two open-world genomics case studies, AgentCo-op composes independently developed scientific agents and external tool repositories into auditable workflows without redesigning them or running global topology search. It coordinates specialized agents for spatial transcriptomics and gene-set interpretation to enable collaborative discovery from spatial transcriptomics data, and builds a parallel workflow for cross-modality marker analysis on single-cell multiome data. AgentCo-op can also import a searched workflow as a structural prior and improve it by grounding nodes with retrieved components and applying local repair, showing that synthesis and search are complementary. On six coding, math, and question-answering benchmarks, AgentCo-op achieves the best result on four benchmarks and the best average score under a unified backbone setting, while consistently reducing per-task cost relative to multi-agent baselines. Together, these results suggest that retrieval-based synthesis can extend automated agentic workflow design beyond benchmark-optimized agent graphs to open-world workflows built from existing agents, tools, and typed artifacts.

Research idea generation is the innovation-driving step of automated scientific research. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have shown potential for automating idea generation at scale. However, existing methods mainly condition LLMs on eliciting idea generation through static retrieval of relevant literature or complex prompt engineering, without discarding the structural relations among references. We propose Graphs of Research (GoR), a supervised fine-tuning method that extracts a 2-hop reference neighborhood for each seed paper, derives the relations among those references from citation position, frequency, predecessor links, and publication time, and organizes them into a paper-evolution directed acyclic graph (DAG). We construct an automated extraction pipeline that draws data from five major ML/NLP venues, comprising 498/50/50 train/validation/test seed papers and approximately 7,600 cited references. Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct-1M is fine-tuned on a structured-text prompt that includes the citation graph, edge signals, reference information, and task definition to predict the idea for the seed paper. Across head-to-head LLM-judge tournaments against gpt-4o-driven baselines, GoR-SFT achieves SOTA, demonstrating the effectiveness of citation-evolution graphs as supervision signal for LLM-based idea generation. We hope that this reduces the barrier for citation evolution graphs as a supervision, accelerating automated scientific innovation.

Scientific discovery is fundamentally a resource-constrained process that requires navigating complex trade-offs between the quality and quantity of measurements due to physical and cost constraints. Measurements drive the scientific process by revealing novel phenomena to improve our understanding. Existing benchmarks for evaluating agents for scientific discovery focus on either static knowledge-based reasoning or unconstrained experimental design tasks, and do not capture the ability to make measurements and plan under constraints. To bridge this gap, we propose Measuring and Discovering Physics (MaD Physics), a benchmark to evaluate the ability of agents to make informative measurements and conclusions subject to constraints on the quality and quantity of measurements. The benchmark consists of three environments, each based on a distinct physical law. To mitigate contamination from existing knowledge, MaD Physics includes altered physical laws. In each trial, the agent makes measurements of the system until it exhausts an allotted budget and then the agent has to infer the underlying physical law to make predictions about the state of the system in the future. MaD Physics evaluates two fundamental capabilities of scientific agents: inferring models from data and planning under constraints. We also demonstrate how MaD Physics can be used to evaluate other capabilities such as multimodality and in-context learning. We benchmark agents on MaD Physics using four Gemini models (2.5 Flash Lite, 2.5 Flash, 2.5 Pro, and 3 Flash), identifying shortcomings in their structured exploration and data collection capabilities and highlighting directions to improve their scientific reasoning.

The implicit policy of maintaining relatively stable acceptance rates at top AI conferences, despite exponentially growing submissions, introduces a critical structural vulnerability. This position paper characterizes a new systemic threat we term Agentic Denominator Gaming, in which a malicious actor deploys AI agents to generate and submit a large volume of superficially plausible but low-quality papers. Crucially, their objective is not the acceptance of low-quality papers, but rather to inflate the submission denominator and overwhelm reviewing capacity. Under a relatively stable acceptance rate, this dilution can systematically increase the publication probability of a small, targeted set of legitimate papers. We analyze the practical feasibility of this threat and its broader consequences, including intensified reviewer burnout, degraded review quality, and the emergence of industrialized automated agent mills. Finally, we propose and evaluate a range of mitigation strategies, and argue that durable protection will require system-level policy and incentive reforms, rather than relying primarily on technical detection alone.

A growing body of work pursues AI scientists capable of end-to-end autonomous scientific discovery. This position paper argues that although they already function as co-scientists, agentic AI scientists are not built for autonomous scientific discovery. We identify the following challenges in building and deploying autonomous AI scientists: (1) Problem selection is influenced by the McNamara fallacy; (2) Agents are built on large language models (LLMs) whose training corpora omit tacit procedural and failure knowledge of laboratory practice; (3) Preference optimisation during post-training compresses output diversity toward consensus; and (4) Most scientific benchmarks measure single-turn prediction accuracy and lack feedback from physical experiments back to the computational model. These challenges are not just questions of scale and scaffolding; they require revisiting fundamental design choices. To build truly autonomous AI scientists, we recommend the use of scientific simulations as verifiers for training, the design of persistent world models that represent the shifting objectives governing real investigations, the establishment of a centralized preregistration repository for all AI-generated hypotheses, and application driven by scientific need rather than tool affordance.

Virtual Cell Modeling (VCM) requires models that not only predict perturbation responses, but also support targeted revision when predictions fail. Current LLM-assisted modeling workflows face a refinement-routing problem: prediction discrepancies are observed through executable implementations, but the relevant revision may involve the modeling assumption, representation design, implementation, or task constraint. Without structured feedback propagation across these levels, iterative refinement may repair code while failing to revise the assumption responsible for the discrepancy. We propose CellScientist, a dual-space hierarchical framework that couples a high-level hypothesis space with a low-level executable implementation space. CellScientist represents modeling decisions as structured states, realizes them as admissible programs under task and interface constraints, and routes execution discrepancies back to targeted hypothesis or implementation updates. This enables a closed Hypothesis -> Implementation -> Hypothesis loop where failures become structured signals for model refinement rather than debugging events. Across morphology and transcriptomic benchmarks, with additional single-cell perturbation evaluations, the final executable models selected by CellScientist improve over reference baselines under fixed split and evaluation protocols, while the workflow produces auditable refinement traces.

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are increasingly used in modern weapons systems. Notably, these systems have recently been involved in mass killings and destruction at scale. Furthermore, there is currently a strong interest and competition among powerful players to accelerate the proliferation of weapons with automated or AI-based components, a phenomenon known as AI arms race. This competition poses a risk of causing even more deaths and devastation in the future, as well as increased power and wealth inequality. In this work, we aim to shed light on the role of AI researchers as implicated subjects in the harms caused by weapons enabled by AI technologies. We investigate and discuss the specifics of this implication and explore ways to transfigure this position of implication into one of differentiated, long-distance solidarity with the victims of technologically fortified injustices.

This article argues that the most important significance of the AI revolution, especially the rise of large language models, lies not simply in automation, but in a fundamental change in how complex information and human know-how are carried, replicated, and shared. From this perspective, AI for Science is especially important because it may transform not only the efficiency of research, but also the structure of scientific collaboration, discovery, publishing, and evaluation. The article outlines a gradual path from AI as a research tool to AI as a scientific collaborator, and discusses how AI is likely to fundamentally reshape scientific publication. It also argues that continuous learning and diversity of ideas are essential if AI is to play a meaningful role in original scientific discovery.

Scientific research based on multimodal clinical data (including medical imaging) requires coordinating clinical, radiological, programming, and biostatistical expertise, a fragmented process that bottlenecks discovery. We present VERITAS (Verifiable Epistemic Reasoning for Image-Derived Hypothesis Testing via Agentic Systems), a clinical co-scientist: a multi-agent system that autonomously tests natural-language hypotheses and produces a fully auditable evidence trail, tracing every conclusion through executable outputs from analysis plan to segmentation masks to statistical code to final verdict. Unlike prior AI-scientist systems, which mainly operate on tabular or text data, VERITAS grounds autonomous discovery directly in medical images. It decomposes the workflow into four phases handled by role-specialized agents, and introduces an epistemic evidence label framework that mechanically classifies outcomes as Supported, Refuted, Underpowered, or Invalid by jointly evaluating significance, effect direction, and study power. This distinction is critical in medical imaging, where non-significant results often reflect insufficient sample size rather than absent effects. We construct a tiered benchmark of 64 hypotheses spanning six complexity levels across cardiac and brain glioma MRI datasets. VERITAS reaches 81.4% verdict accuracy with frontier models and 71.2% with locally-hosted open-weight models (8-30B), outperforming all single-model baselines in both classes. It also produces the highest rate of independently verifiable statistical outputs (86.6%), so even its failures remain diagnosable through artifact inspection. Structured multi-agent decomposition thus substitutes for model scale while preserving the verifiability that scientific discovery demands. We release code, hypothesis bank, and evaluation pipeline at https://github.com/LucZot/veritas.

Scientific discovery is driven by scientists generating novel hypotheses for complex problems that undergo rigorous experimental validation. To augment this process, we introduce Co-Scientist, a multi-agent AI system built on Gemini for structured scientific thinking and hypothesis generation. Co-Scientist aims to help scientists discover new original knowledge. Conditioned on their research objectives and prior scientific evidence, it formulates demonstrably novel research hypotheses for experimental verification. The system's design involves agents continuously generating, critiquing and refining hypotheses accelerated by scaling test-time compute. Key contributions include: (1) a multi-agent architecture with an asynchronous task execution framework for flexible compute scaling; (2) a tournament evolution process for self-improving hypotheses generation. Automated evaluations show continued benefits of test-time compute scaling, improving hypothesis quality over time. While general purpose, we focus the validation in three biomedical applications: drug repurposing, novel target discovery, and explaining mechanisms of anti-microbial resistance. Specifically, Co-Scientist helped identify new drug repurposing candidates and synergistic combination therapies for acute myeloid leukemia, which were validated through in vitro experiments. These real-world validations demonstrate the potential of Co-Scientist to accelerate scientific discovery and usher in an era of AI empowered scientists.

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 (E$^3$), 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.