Position: Correct Answer, Wrong Mechanism -- When AI Scientists Defend General Claims Their Own Data Contradicts
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 Me...
| Authors | Steven Young Eulig |
|---|---|
| Primary category | cs.LG |
| Published | 22 June 2026 |
| Last updated at source | 22 June 2026 |
Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 17 October 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.