Figure 1: Brain Researcher: workspace-centric infrastructure for auditable neuroimaging research. Brain Researcher runs inside the researcher’s existing computational environment and exposes neuroimaging analyses as structured, auditable operations: every choice, check, and input is recorded as it happens, so that a frozen record of the completed analysis can be read and audited by someone other than the person who ran it, without re-executing it. (a) The tool ecosystem: established neuroimaging software for preprocessing, modeling, meta-analysis, machine learning, quality control, and reporting, each represented by a machine-readable specification and executed in a version-pinned container. (b) Each specification declares its inputs, outputs, parameters, version, evidence anchors, and validation rules; the rule checker tests every proposed call against these clauses before it runs, and records which clauses passed or failed. (c) The episode workflow: the researcher frames a question and approves the plan at the commitment gate, valid actions are dispatched to version-pinned executors, and the resulting audit bundle, containing the committed plan, tool versions, evidence consulted, artifacts, logs, provenance, and the checks each claim passed, feeds the review layer, which writes condition-tagged claims back to memory. This audit bundle is what makes an analysis auditable: a completed run is a fully inspectable research object rather than a one-off result, exported as a compact claim card a reviewer can reopen field by field. Methodological judgment remains the researcher’s; the system makes it visible at each stage.Figure 2: BR-KG: provenance-linked semantic integration for grounded, auditable neuroimaging reasoning. BR-KG integrates existing ontologies, repositories, data resources, and literature into a single graph (745,949 nodes, 2,461,469 edges; 2026-07-07 release snapshot) aligned to the OpenNeuro Vocabulary (ONVOC) (44), which normalizes heterogeneous terms to shared identifiers so a query resolves consistently across sources. The central graph links neuroimaging concepts (tasks, contrasts, cognitive constructs), neural representations (brain regions, statistical maps), and research resources (datasets, tools) through typed relationships, with literature evidence attached. Crucially, source-backed facts carry explicit provenance (their source, and where available a verbatim supporting quote and grounding label), so a retrieved claim can be traced back to the study and passage that support it rather than taken on trust; coverage is partial and tracked, and this is what makes retrieval here auditable. Downstream panels show the payoff: grounded query answering and multi-hop reasoning over concept-task-map paths, each hop inspectable down to its underlying nodes, edges, and cited evidence, which lets the review layer attach a recommendation’s method-condition checks (cohort, paradigm, preprocessing, statistical model) before it is accepted.
Figure 3: Summary of Brain Researcher effects across quantitative benchmark tasks. Without-BR (gray) and with-BR (blue) benchmark performance. Capability@k is mean coverage of required task capabilities after the first k non-neutral actions. The left column reports Capability@1 and @3 across the seven model variants (Claude Opus 4.8, Codex GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, GLM-5.1, DeepSeek-V4-Pro, Kimi K2.5, Qwen3.6-Plus). Upper-right panels break Capability@1 down by task domain. Lower panels report Handoff score@1 and @3 (whether the first route carries enough information for another agent to continue) and a Gemini 2.5 Flash single-judge safeguard: precision among claims marked grounded (fraction whose cited evidence was both locatable and judged supportive). Correct route/tool@1, the first-action selection accuracy reported in the text (23.3% to 93.6%), is detailed in Supplementary Methods S11.1.1. Metrics are interpreted within panel, as denominators and scoring rules differ across benchmarks.Figure 4: Multiverse sensitivity and claim-review outcomes across three collaborator episodes. (A–C) Schizophrenia NeuroMark audit: (A) group-mean functional connectivity for controls (HC, N=181), patients (SZ, N=182), and their difference across four estimators; (B) NM-H2 (between- versus within-domain) specification curve over the 480-specification multiverse; after sign-aware rescoring, its estimand comprises 24 unique connectivity–confound–domain contrasts, with favorable support at 100% for Pearson and Spearman and 0% for partial correlation and mutual information. This complete estimator partition, rather than the pooled 12-of-24 fraction, is the informative result: NM-H2 is measure-dependent, and the mechanism underlying the partition remains unresolved. (C) Marginal influence of each analytic choice on NM-H2. (D, E) Cocaine-use-disorder episode: (D) multiverse stability of systemic-segregation associations across 36 specifications with SDMA-GLS consensus; (E) single-specification versus multiverse SDMA-GLS maps for five network–outcome pairs. (F) Cross-cultural social cognition: culture-stratified ALE maps contrasting Euro-American trust networks with East Asian social-cognition networks.
Figure 5: Brain Researcher searches 116 HCP prediction pipelines and identifies a workflow that consistently exceeds a matched reference. A. Brain Researcher first evaluated 20 candidate pipelines for Cognition prediction, reaching a best discovery score of r=.373. Brain researcher then launched a 96-candidate expansion; 84 candidates returned scores and 12 ended in transport failure. Within the expanded episode, Brain Researcher adapted its proposals to the accumulating results: 27 candidates exceeded the initial search maximum, and the highest discovery score was r=.487, obtained with whole-band coherence and ridge regression. Following a selector audit, the researcher froze a related coherence-based workflow for matched evaluation. Across 10 repeated family-grouped 5×3 nested-cross-validation runs, this workflow achieved median r=.332, compared with .235 for the matched reference (median Δr=.098; conditional one-sided p=.006), and was higher in all 10 runs. B. The same frozen selected workflow was then refit for each of four additional behavioural outcomes without target-specific retuning. It produced a higher median correlation for every outcome and exceeded the matched reference in 37 of 40 repeat-level comparisons, giving 47 of 50 directional wins across all five outcomes.Figure 6: Brain Researcher turns an open question about TRIBE into successive tests with new sounds and collections. A. Brain Researcher began by asking how TRIBE changes natural-sound representations from early to late layers. It screened category contrasts by their change in held-out distinguishability (AUC), without choosing a target in advance. Tools–voice changed most, but the pattern varied across collections. Rather than simply following the top-ranked result, Brain Researcher identified speech–tools as a clearer lead: the categories moved closer in later layers while usually keeping the same representational direction. The contrast could also be retested with new, acoustically matched sounds from several collections. The researcher approved this direction and froze the prediction and analysis. B. Brain Researcher then evaluated three non-overlapping 48-item panels. All three showed a smaller speech–tools separation on average in later layers. In 11 of 12 collection-by-panel comparisons, the categories became less separated while retaining the prespecified direction. C. After the pattern recurred across all three panels, Brain Researcher extended the test to four previously unused sound collections. Three of four showed the same geometry, and the late-layer separation was again smaller on average (ΔS=−0.198). In all geometry plots, horizontal position shows the late-minus-early change in normalized separation (ΔS), and vertical position shows late directional alignment (C); the upper-left quadrant therefore marks smaller separation with retained direction. A uses fold-specific references, whereas B and C use the frozen speech–tools reference.
论文原文摘要（英文）
AI agents can execute scientific analyses, but an analytic output becomes a defensible claim only after alternatives are weighed and the claim is limited to what the evidence supports. Agents may reproduce failures including selective analysis, premature declarations of success and optimization of imperfect criteria. We present Brain Researcher, an agentic research harness operating in a neuroimaging researcher's computational environment under rules for admissible analyses, required checks and claim scope. In benchmarks, Brain Researcher increased first-choice tool-selection accuracy across seven models by 70.2 percentage points (23.3% without it versus 93.6% with it) and verifiable grounding from 4.6% to 22.0%. In collaborator-led and self-evolving studies, multiverse analyses exposed analytic-choice sensitivity, and scientific review classified claims as accepted, qualified, revised, blocked, rejected or deferred. By linking decisions to evidence and provenance, Brain Researcher embeds methodological judgment within the workflow, not after it.
作者 · Zijiao Chen, Nicholas Lu, Xinhui Li, Jocelyn A. Ricard, Ce Ju, Huan H. Wang, Christian Kindermann, Jeanette A. Mumford
