One Reflection Is Not Enough: Self-Correcting Autonomous Research via Multi-Hypothesis Failure Attribution

Abstract

Autonomous research agents can now draft hypotheses, write code, run experiments, and produce papers, but they remain brittle when experiments fail. Under the prevailing paradigm, failure recovery is usually delegated to a single free-form reflection: a rich trajectory of metrics, logs, and design choices is compressed into one verbal critique, which often leads either to localized trial-and-error or to hard pivots that discard useful context. We propose SAGE, a Self-correcting, Autonomous, Grounded Experimenter, to tackle this failure-recovery bottleneck. Its core mechanism, Multi-Hypothesis Failure Attribution (MHFA), treats recovery as a structured causal diagnosis. By analyzing dynamic trajectory features, MHFA systematically generates multiple evidence-grounded explanations for a failure, independently evaluates their severity, and deterministically routes the verified root cause to the correct intervention level (hypothesis, experimental design, or implementation). To guarantee scientific honesty, SAGE further employs a grounded reporting mechanism that explicitly constrains drafted results to actual measured values, redacting hallucinated numbers. On a 12-topic, 5-domain benchmark, SAGE increases metrics-bearing outputs from 42% to 92% over a reflection baseline, improves artifact quality from 5.00 to 6.75/10, and blindly outscores AI-Scientist-v2 (52.0 vs. 48.2), with gains concentrated in code development and execution. While fully autonomous scientific writing and generating conference-ready papers remain notoriously difficult open problems for the entire field, SAGE successfully produces significantly more reliable and higher-quality scientific artifacts. Ultimately, by coupling structured recovery with explicit grounding constraints, SAGE significantly outperforms monolithic reflection paradigms, establishing a highly trustworthy foundation for future autonomous research.