SciGame: Let Agents Play the Scientific Discovery Games in the Real and Counterfactual World
Abstract
SciGame evaluates scientific discovery agents using structured cards with counterfactual environments to separate prior knowledge from empirical evidence, revealing that exact symbolic law recovery remains a key challenge.
Large language model agents are increasingly used for scientific discovery. However, existing benchmarks mix law inference with programming, score data fitting instead of prediction on unseen inputs, and do not separate empirical evidence from pretrained priors. We introduce SciGame, a controlled benchmark that converts scientific literature into structured scientific cards. Each card yields a pair of Original and dimensionally consistent Counterfactual environments with the same task interface. SciGame contains a Historical collection of canonical laws and a live Temporal collection curated from papers published after model knowledge cutoffs. It evaluates agents in candidate-guided Identification and open-ended Discovery settings. Each setting runs under Prior-only, Fixed, and Adaptive protocols. Experiments on five frontier models yield three findings. First, familiar priors hurt performance once the governing relation is altered. Second, adaptive experimentation helps the strongest models but harms weaker ones under limited budgets. Third, good explanations can hide quantitative failures. Recovering the exact symbolic form remains the main bottleneck, even when agents interpret evidence correctly. Current agents can investigate systems actively, but inducing exact laws in unfamiliar settings remains an open challenge.
Community
SciGame separates scientific law discovery from memorization. Every relation becomes a "scientific card" generating two worlds behind one interface: an Original environment following the published law, and a Counterfactual twin with a mutated but dimensionally consistent law. Memory passes the first and fails the second; only evidence gets through both. Agents run hypotheses, experiments and forecasts, scored on held-out prediction, strict success and explanation quality. Notably: strict success on Historical counterfactuals is 0% for all five Codex models tested, adaptive experimenting helps some models and hurts others, and ~48% of one model's failures show a near-perfect explanation with no symbolic equation ever written.
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2610.37919 Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper