Anna Gogleva, Thomas Charman, Martin Balla, Karl Gemayel
Scientific agents can find interventions that work without understanding why they do. We study this failure mode in controlled synthetic regulatory systems, where agents must experimentally identify a hidden fault and rescue the resulting phenotype. Across seven LLMs, every model restores the healthy phenotypes more often than it identifies the fault. Claude Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6 rescue every organism while diagnosing only 55% and 35% of them. This failure is not simply due to insufficient exploration or unavailable evidence. In most cases, the cause is experimentally identifiable, and agents encounter evidence that distinguishes competing causes in 91% of relevant sessions, and still frequently misdiagnose the system. Targeted probes reveal where experimental reasoning breaks down. Models reliably interpret decisive evidence and revise hypotheses when the causal comparison is explicit, and can locate that evidence within a full experimental record. However, they struggle to predict the outcome of the experiment under each competing cause, a necessary step in using the observed result to distinguish between them. Agents can therefore gather the right evidence and still infer the wrong cause. As AI systems take on a growing role in synthesising scientific evidence, these findings highlight the need to evaluate how they use evidence to reach causal conclusions, alongside whether their interventions succeed.
Anna Gogleva, Thomas Charman, Martin Balla, Karl Gemayel
An experimental agent can succeed for the wrong reasons. Evaluations, however, often focus on the outcome, not the experiments, evidence, and inferences that produced it. We introduce LUCA, a configurable synthetic world for evaluating this process under fully known ground truth. Agents learn unknown regulatory systems through budgeted experimentation, then predict unseen interventions, diagnose hidden faults, and attempt rescues. This setup allows us to evaluate experiment selection, prediction, diagnosis, and intervention separately. Across seven frontier LLMs and three baselines, these capabilities dissociate sharply. Agents frequently rescue malfunctioning systems while diagnosing the wrong fault; diagnosis varies 7x across models while prediction varies only 1.4x. Models also adopt surprisingly different experimental strategies, and greater exploration does not reliably yield better performance. In one failure mode, agents often perform the experiment needed to distinguish competing causes, but still fail to use the resulting evidence. LUCA turns these hidden failures into measurable behaviours, providing a controlled environment to study where experimental agents succeed and fail. Code: https://github.com/RelationRx/luca.