The Agentic Garden of Forking Paths

arXiv cs.AI Papers

Summary

This paper introduces AI agents that reproduce human analytical variation across datasets, finding that different personas lead to divergent conclusions. It proposes the m-value and Agentic Bootstrap to assess the credibility of reported analyses.

arXiv:2607.01507v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Empirical research rarely admits a unique analysis. Different analytical choices can lead to different conclusions from the same data, yet these hidden forking paths are difficult to observe. We show that AI agents capture much of the analytical variation among human researchers while making these paths explicit. Across four high-stakes domains, assigning different personas is sufficient for AI agents to report divergent, often opposing, conclusions from the same data and question, with findings systematically aligned with those beliefs. In a study in which 42 human research teams analyzed the same immigration dataset, AI agents reproduced 72% of the human ideological gap in reported effect estimates. Despite reaching opposing conclusions, it is difficult to identify clear issues in each analysis based on the final AI reports: 86% passed independent AI review and 78% passed majority human expert review. These findings suggest that the central challenge is often not flawed analyses, but selective exploration and reporting from a large space of methodologically defensible analyses. AI agents may amplify this longstanding problem by making such exploration inexpensive and scalable. To address this, we introduce the m-value (multiverse value), the probability that an analysis path would produce a claim at least as extreme as the reported one. We further introduce Agentic Bootstrap, which estimates the m-value by using AI agents to sample plausible analysis paths. Applied to the human immigration study, 13.5% of reported human analyses fell in the most extreme 5% of the analysis space (m<0.05). Scientific evidence should therefore be evaluated not only by a single reported analysis but also by its position within the distribution of analyses that could reasonably have been reported. Agentic Bootstrap makes this distribution observable and turns it into a criterion for scientific credibility.
Original Article
View Cached Full Text

Cached at: 07/03/26, 05:44 AM

# The Agentic Garden of Forking Paths
Source: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.01507](https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.01507)
[View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.01507)

> Abstract:Empirical research rarely admits a unique analysis\. Different analytical choices can lead to different conclusions from the same data, yet these hidden forking paths are difficult to observe\. We show that AI agents capture much of the analytical variation among human researchers while making these paths explicit\. Across four high\-stakes domains, assigning different personas is sufficient for AI agents to report divergent, often opposing, conclusions from the same data and question, with findings systematically aligned with those beliefs\. In a study in which 42 human research teams analyzed the same immigration dataset, AI agents reproduced 72% of the human ideological gap in reported effect estimates\. Despite reaching opposing conclusions, it is difficult to identify clear issues in each analysis based on the final AI reports: 86% passed independent AI review and 78% passed majority human expert review\. These findings suggest that the central challenge is often not flawed analyses, but selective exploration and reporting from a large space of methodologically defensible analyses\. AI agents may amplify this longstanding problem by making such exploration inexpensive and scalable\. To address this, we introduce the m\-value \(multiverse value\), the probability that an analysis path would produce a claim at least as extreme as the reported one\. We further introduce Agentic Bootstrap, which estimates the m\-value by using AI agents to sample plausible analysis paths\. Applied to the human immigration study, 13\.5% of reported human analyses fell in the most extreme 5% of the analysis space \(m<0\.05\)\. Scientific evidence should therefore be evaluated not only by a single reported analysis but also by its position within the distribution of analyses that could reasonably have been reported\. Agentic Bootstrap makes this distribution observable and turns it into a criterion for scientific credibility\.

## Submission history

From: Jiacheng Miao \[[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/cdcf1cdc/2607.01507)\] **\[v1\]**Wed, 1 Jul 2026 22:15:37 UTC \(5,269 KB\)

Similar Articles

Neurodata Without Boredom: Benchmarking Agentic AI for Data Reuse

arXiv cs.LG

This paper benchmarks agentic AI systems on the task of loading, understanding, and reformatting fragmented neuroscience data, finding that while agents perform well on subtasks, they rarely achieve fully error-free end-to-end solutions and human oversight remains necessary.

Position: Agentic AI System Is a Foreseeable Pathway to AGI

arXiv cs.AI

This paper argues that monolithic scaling of a single model is insufficient for achieving AGI and proposes Agentic AI with multi-agent collaboration as a necessary paradigm, demonstrating theoretically that agentic systems achieve exponentially superior generalization and sample efficiency.

Agentic coding notes from Galapagos Island

Hacker News Top

Dan Luu reflects on his experiences using AI coding agents, noting that while AI can fabricate convincing but false repros, it still offers productivity gains in areas like debugging and testing. He discusses the balance of trust, automation, and quality in modern software development.