Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as decision-support tools in data-constrained scientific workflows, where correctness and validity are critical. However, evaluation practices often emphasize stability or reproducibility across repeated runs. While these properties are desirable, stability alone does not guar- antee agreement with statistical ground truth when such references are available. We introduce a controlled behavioral evaluation framework that explicitly sep- arates four dimensions of LLM decision-making: stability, correctness, prompt sensitivity, and output validity under fixed statistical inputs. We evaluate multi- ple LLMs using a statistical gene prioritization task derived from differential ex- pression analysis across prompt regimes involving strict and relaxed significance thresholds, borderline ranking scenarios, and minor wording variations. Our ex- periments show that LLMs can exhibit near-perfect run-to-run stability while sys- tematically diverging from statistical ground truth, over-selecting under relaxed thresholds, responding sharply to minor prompt wording changes, or producing syntactically plausible gene identifiers absent from the input table. Although sta- bility reflects robustness across repeated runs, it does not guarantee agreement with statistical ground truth in structured scientific decision tasks. These findings highlight the importance of explicit ground-truth validation and output validity checks when deploying LLMs in automated or semi-automated scientific work- flows.

A competition calling for research projects involving so-called AI scientists shows just how fast this technology is moving. A number of startups and universities that are building "AI scientists" to design and run experiments in the lab, including robot biologists and chemists, have just won extra funding from the UK government agency that funds moonshot R&D. The competition, set up by ARIA (the Advanced Research and Invention Agency), gives a clear sense of how fast this technology is moving: The agency received 245 proposals from research teams that are already building tools capable of automating increasing amounts of lab work. ARIA defines an AI scientist as a system that can run an entire scientific workflow, coming up with hypotheses, designing and running experiments to test those hypotheses, and then analyzing the results. In many cases, the system may then feed those results back into itself and run the loop again and again. Human scientists become overseers, coming up with the initial research questions and then letting the AI scientist get on with the grunt work.

Agentic frameworks powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) can be useful tools in scientific workflows by enabling human-AI co-creation. A key challenge is recommending the next steps during workflow creation without relying solely on LLMs, which risk hallucination and require fine-tuning with scarce proprietary data. We propose an episodic memory architecture that stores and retrieves past workflows to guide agents in suggesting plausible next tasks. By matching current workflows with historical sequences, agents can recommend steps based on prior patterns.

AI Scientific Assistant Core (AISAC) is an integrated multi-agent system developed at Argonne National Laboratory for scientific and engineering workflows. AISAC builds on established technologies - LangGraph for orchestration, FAISS for vector search, and SQLite for persistence - and integrates them into a unified system prototype focused on transparency, provenance tracking, and scientific adaptability. The system implements a Router-Planner-Coordinator workflow and an optional Evaluator role, using prompt-engineered agents coordinated via LangGraph's StateGraph and supported by helper agents such as a Researcher. Each role is defined through custom system prompts that enforce structured JSON outputs. A hybrid memory approach (FAISS + SQLite) enables both semantic retrieval and structured conversation history. An incremental indexing strategy based on file hashing minimizes redundant re-embedding when scientific corpora evolve. A configuration-driven project bootstrap layer allows research teams to customize tools, prompts, and data sources without modifying core code. All agent decisions, tool invocations, and retrievals are logged and visualized through a custom Gradio interface, providing step-by-step transparency for each reasoning episode. The authors have applied AISAC to multiple research areas at Argonne, including specialized deployments for waste-to-products research and energy process safety, as well as general-purpose scientific assistance, demonstrating its cross-domain applicability.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping scientific discovery, evolving from specialized computational tools into autonomous research partners. We position Agentic Science as a pivotal stage within the broader AI for Science paradigm, where AI systems progress from partial assistance to full scientific agency. Enabled by large language models (LLMs), multimodal systems, and integrated research platforms, agentic AI shows capabilities in hypothesis generation, experimental design, execution, analysis, and iterative refinement -- behaviors once regarded as uniquely human. This survey provides a domain-oriented review of autonomous scientific discovery across life sciences, chemistry, materials science, and physics. We unify three previously fragmented perspectives -- process-oriented, autonomy-oriented, and mechanism-oriented -- through a comprehensive framework that connects foundational capabilities, core processes, and domain-specific realizations. Building on this framework, we (i) trace the evolution of AI for Science, (ii) identify five core capabilities underpinning scientific agency, (iii) model discovery as a dynamic four-stage workflow, (iv) review applications across the above domains, and (v) synthesize key challenges and future opportunities. This work establishes a domain-oriented synthesis of autonomous scientific discovery and positions Agentic Science as a structured paradigm for advancing AI-driven research.

Modern scientific discovery increasingly requires coordinating distributed facilities and heterogeneous resources, forcing researchers to act as manual workflow coordinators rather than scientists. Advances in AI leading to AI agents show exciting new opportunities that can accelerate scientific discovery by providing intelligence as a component in the ecosystem. However, it is unclear how this new capability would materialize and integrate in the real world. To address this, we propose a conceptual framework where workflows evolve along two dimensions which are intelligence (from static to intelligent) and composition (from single to swarm) to chart an evolutionary path from current workflow management systems to fully autonomous, distributed scientific laboratories. With these trajectories in mind, we present an architectural blueprint that can help the community take the next steps towards harnessing the opportunities in autonomous science with the potential for 100x discovery acceleration and transformational scientific workflows.

Scientific innovation relies on detailed workflows, which include critical steps such as analyzing literature, generating ideas, validating these ideas, interpreting results, and inspiring follow-up research. However, scientific publications that document these workflows are extensive and unstructured. This makes it difficult for both human researchers and AI systems to effectively navigate and explore the space of scientific innovation. To address this issue, we introduce MASSW, a comprehensive text dataset on Multi-Aspect Summarization of Scientific Workflows. MASSW includes more than 152,000 peer-reviewed publications from 17 leading computer science conferences spanning the past 50 years. Using Large Language Models (LLMs), we automatically extract five core aspects from these publications -- context, key idea, method, outcome, and projected impact -- which correspond to five key steps in the research workflow. These structured summaries facilitate a variety of downstream tasks and analyses. The quality of the LLM-extracted summaries is validated by comparing them with human annotations. We demonstrate the utility of MASSW through multiple novel machine-learning tasks that can be benchmarked using this new dataset, which make various types of predictions and recommendations along the scientific workflow. MASSW holds significant potential for researchers to create and benchmark new AI methods for optimizing scientific workflows and fostering scientific innovation in the field. Our dataset is openly available at \url{https://github.com/xingjian-zhang/massw}.

Scientific workflow systems are increasingly popular for expressing and executing complex data analysis pipelines over large datasets, as they offer reproducibility, dependability, and scalability of analyses by automatic parallelization on large compute clusters. However, implementing workflows is difficult due to the involvement of many black-box tools and the deep infrastructure stack necessary for their execution. Simultaneously, user-supporting tools are rare, and the number of available examples is much lower than in classical programming languages. To address these challenges, we investigate the efficiency of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically ChatGPT, to support users when dealing with scientific workflows. We performed three user studies in two scientific domains to evaluate ChatGPT for comprehending, adapting, and extending workflows. Our results indicate that LLMs efficiently interpret workflows but achieve lower performance for exchanging components or purposeful workflow extensions. We characterize their limitations in these challenging scenarios and suggest future research directions.

The ability to replicate predictions by machine learning (ML) or artificial intelligence (AI) models and results in scientific workflows that incorporate such ML/AI predictions is driven by numerous factors. An uncertainty-aware metric that can quantitatively assess the reproducibility of quantities of interest (QoI) would contribute to the trustworthiness of results obtained from scientific workflows involving ML/AI models. In this article, we discuss how uncertainty quantification (UQ) in a Bayesian paradigm can provide a general and rigorous framework for quantifying reproducibility for complex scientific workflows. Such as framework has the potential to fill a critical gap that currently exists in ML/AI for scientific workflows, as it will enable researchers to determine the impact of ML/AI model prediction variability on the predictive outcomes of ML/AI-powered workflows. We expect that the envisioned framework will contribute to the design of more reproducible and trustworthy workflows for diverse scientific applications, and ultimately, accelerate scientific discoveries.

The emergence of "big data" offers unprecedented opportunities for not only accelerating scientific advances but also enabling new modes of discovery. Scientific progress in many disciplines is increasingly enabled by our ability to examine natural phenomena through the computational lens, i.e., using algorithmic or information processing abstractions of the underlying processes; and our ability to acquire, share, integrate and analyze disparate types of data. However, there is a huge gap between our ability to acquire, store, and process data and our ability to make effective use of the data to advance discovery. Despite successful automation of routine aspects of data management and analytics, most elements of the scientific process currently require considerable human expertise and effort. Accelerating science to keep pace with the rate of data acquisition and data processing calls for the development of algorithmic or information processing abstractions, coupled with formal methods and tools for modeling and simulation of natural processes as well as major innovations in cognitive tools for scientists, i.e., computational tools that leverage and extend the reach of human intellect, and partner with humans on a broad range of tasks in scientific discovery (e.g., identifying, prioritizing formulating questions, designing, prioritizing and executing experiments designed to answer a chosen question, drawing inferences and evaluating the results, and formulating new questions, in a closed-loop fashion). This calls for concerted research agenda aimed at: Development, analysis, integration, sharing, and simulation of algorithmic or information processing abstractions of natural processes, coupled with formal methods and tools for their analyses and simulation; Innovations in cognitive tools that augment and extend human intellect and partner with humans in all aspects of science.