Ying Xiao, Xinjian Wu, Lukas Twist, Yaoqi Guo, Yepang Liu, Zhenpeng Chen, Jie M. Zhang
Human oversight of large language models (LLMs) and artificial intelligence (AI) agents increasingly depends on their reports. Claims that conflict with a system's own judgments can conceal failures, prevent timely intervention, and contribute to severe harm. Greater autonomy makes faithful reporting increasingly important for maintaining human control. In this vision paper, we propose honesty testing of LLMs and AI agents as a new research area in software engineering. Building on existing honesty evaluations, our goal is to make faithful reporting a software quality requirement that developers can specify, test, and maintain. We define honesty bugs as behavioural defects in which an LLM or AI agent, when required to communicate faithfully, makes an explicit claim that conflicts with its own judgment at the time of reporting. We present an initial framework covering LLM-level testing under controlled inputs and agent-level testing of complete systems. The framework connects these levels to testing workflows and oracle evidence. We identify research directions in benchmarks, model and harness analysis, oracle construction, and lifecycle testing to support effective oversight alongside task correctness.
AI has made significant contributions to scientific discovery. Autonomous agents can now independently analyse complex problems, design experiments, write and execute code, analyse findings, and derive scientific conclusions. Nevertheless, errors in AI-generated code, experimental procedures, or evidence interpretation can lead to invalid research conclusions, undermining the reliability and reproducibility of automated scientific discovery. In this vision paper, we propose Software Engineering for AI-Driven Science (SE4AI4Sci) as an emerging research area for addressing this challenge. As an organising framework, we introduce the Scientific Assurance Chain, connecting intent, experimental design, implementation, execution, evidence, and claim. Through six documented failures in recent AI-for-science systems, we show where this chain can break, where existing assurance mechanisms fall short, and what new research challenges follow. We also outline a research agenda for adapting and extending software engineering techniques across the chain.