Skip to content

FirstResearch: Auditable Question Formation for LLM Scientific Discovery Agents

Jul 2026 · arXiv.org · Vol abs/2607.05682 · 1 citation · 10 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

These results are preliminary and use LLM judges rather than human domain experts, but they support a narrow scientific-discovery claim: explicit derivation constraints are a promising mechanism for making LLM-generated scientific questions more auditable.

Abstract

LLM systems for scientific discovery increasingly assist with ideation, literature synthesis, experiment planning, and report generation, but the first research question they propose can remain difficult to audit: it may sound plausible without exposing the mechanism, falsifier, or assumption that a scientist should inspect. We introduce FirstResearch, a first-principles research-question formation framework for scientific LLM agents whose core artifact is a structured Research Question Certificate. The certificate records primitive definitions, assumptions, a mechanism model, a tension or contradiction, a falsifiable hypothesis, a minimal decisive test, and a failure update rule, making the proposed question inspectable before downstream execution. On ten LLM-agent research topics, FirstResearch outperforms controlled prompt-level baselines inspired by AI co-scientist, Agent Laboratory, and AI Scientist-v2 under a primary DeepSeek-blind-judge protocol. A Gemini-2.5-Flash independent-judge rescore of the same 40 baseline packages preserves the system-level ranking, with FirstResearch scoring 4.86/5 versus 4.38/5 for the strongest baseline and Pearson agreement of 0.865 on average score. A one-repeat ablation checkpoint further suggests that the certificate-centered core is the strongest component: certificate-only scoring reaches 4.90/5 under DeepSeek and 4.88/5 under Gemini, while removing certificates drops below 1/5 under both judges. These results are preliminary and use LLM judges rather than human domain experts, but they support a narrow scientific-discovery claim: explicit derivation constraints are a promising mechanism for making LLM-generated scientific questions more auditable. Code, prompts, saved outputs, and reproduction scripts are available at https://github.com/louiswang524/FirstResearch.

View source

Similar papers

Jul 2026

Toward Auditable AI Scientists: A Hypothesis Evolution Protocol for LLM Agents

The Hypothesis Evolution Protocol (HEP) is proposed, an agent harness that provides hypothesis generation, evaluation, and evolution as explicit, auditable operations and marks a step toward auditable AI scientists, whose scientific reasoning can be inspected, verified, and built upon.

Izumi Takahara, Teruyasu Mizoguchi · 1 citation
Preprint Aug 2026

Beyond Execution: Auditing Experimental Fidelity in LLM-Driven Scientific Research

ABE-Ralph is introduced, a reference-anchored auditing framework that represents claims, protocols, required components, baselines, and metrics as structured experimental constraints, guides implementation through an 8-step workflow, and performs quantitative, qualitative, and code-level verification.

Le-Zhi Yu, Xiaogang Xu, Yuhong Zhou et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

TRACES: A Benchmark for Epistemic Reliability in Scientific Reasoning by LLMs

A probe corpus of 42 retracted, fraudulent, and pseudoscientific papers is paired with a methodology for eliciting and scoring single-shot model engagement with each paper's framing, indicating an urgent need for guardrail infrastructure for scientific deployment of language models.

V. Rodionov, Shamil Assylbekov · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Artifact-centered Claim-aware Observability for Autonomous Scientific Agents

Autonomous scientific agents now increasingly propose ideas, write code, run experiments, analyze results, and even draft papers. Observe and audit those agents are necessary but logging every model call is not enough, scientists also need to inspect the artifacts and claims that the systems produced and their relations. This is driven by the fact that failures in scientific agent systems are often distributed across several objects. A manuscript claim may cite the wrong evidence, a search process may select a degenerate candidate, a laboratory novelty claim may depend on an unstated rule, or a multi-agent plan may change without a visible trigger. Existing tracing, experiment tracking, and archival provenance tools are valuable, but their native objects do not make these scientific audit relations first-class. We argue that autonomous scientific systems should emit portable, claim-aware artifact lineage as a minimum audit layer. We propose a compact observability profile organized around individuals, operators, fitness records, lineage, archives, runs, streams, and steering commands. In this profile, scientific claims are ordinary individuals with explicit evidence bindings and verification records. The profile is intended as a semantic layer that complements current telemetry and provenance standards. Execution details can remain in OpenTelemetry. Final packages can export to PROV-O or RO-Crate standards.

Xiangyu Yin, Ming Du, Michael H. Prince et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Jul 2026

Evidence-Based Scientific Question Discovery: A Framework with Historical Backtesting

A framework that turns a traceable, reproducible, scope controlled research corpus into ranked, falsifiable research questions is presented, instantiate the framework on exoplanet atmospheres, a domain that uniquely combines literature, structured catalogs, and space telescope archives.

Hui Mao · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

SearchAuditor: Auditing and Attributing Failures in Long-Horizon Search Agents

A benchmark that evaluates whether LLM auditors can localize, attribute, and repair search-agent failures through evidence-grounded adjudication, and proposes SearchAuditor, a multi-perspective auditing framework that effectively localizes, attributes, and repairs search-agent failures through evidence-grounded adjudication.

Zhixiang Liang, Yifei Liu, Yi-Dan Huang et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.