Extending AI for Research to the Humanities: A Multi-Agent Framework for Evidence-Grounded Scholarship

Scientific publication compresses a branching, iterative research process into a linear narrative, discarding the majority of what was discovered along the way. This compilation imposes two structural costs: a Storytelling Tax, where failed experiments, rejected hypotheses, and the branching exploration process are discarded to fit a linear narrative; and an Engineering Tax, where the gap between reviewer-sufficient prose and agent-sufficient specification leaves critical implementation details unwritten. Tolerable for human readers, these costs become critical when AI agents must understand, reproduce, and extend published work. We introduce the Agent-Native Research Artifact (ARA), a protocol that replaces the narrative paper with a machine-executable research package structured around four layers: scientific logic, executable code with full specifications, an exploration graph that preserves the failures compilation discards, and evidence grounding every claim in raw outputs. Three mechanisms support the ecosystem: a Live Research Manager that captures decisions and dead ends during ordinary development; an ARA Compiler that translates legacy PDFs and repos into ARAs; and an ARA-native review system that automates objective checks so human reviewers can focus on significance, novelty, and taste. On PaperBench and RE-Bench, ARA raises question-answering accuracy from 72.4% to 93.7% and reproduction success from 57.4% to 64.4%. On RE-Bench's five open-ended extension tasks, preserved failure traces in ARA accelerate progress, but can also constrain a capable agent from stepping outside the prior-run box depending on the agent's capabilities. Our code is open-sourced at https://github.com/Orchestra-Research/Agent-Native-Research-Artifact.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is the prevailing architecture for grounding language model outputs in external evidence, yet its dominant evaluation paradigms and default configurations remain oriented toward factual question-answering. For interpretive disciplines such as historical studies, RAG embeds assumptions that conflict with scholarly practice. We introduce HistoRAG, a framework that translates historiographical principles into concrete architectural interventions. Separated retrieval and generation decouples source discovery from interpretation, temporal windowing enforces balanced source representation across the research period as a methodological requirement of historical inquiry, and LLM-as-judge evaluation makes relevance judgments transparent and contestable. We evaluate these interventions using SPIEGELragged, applied to 102,189 articles from Der Spiegel (1950-1979). Each intervention addresses a measurable deficiency in standard RAG: era-specific vocabulary retrieves zero chunks from the 1950s when using 1970s terminology, evidence of the temporal skew that motivates windowing; vector similarity and LLM-assessed relevance correlate only weakly (Spearman rho = 0.275), motivating post-retrieval evaluation; and keyword-based and semantic retrieval surface largely disjoint source pools, motivating an architecture in which both operate as complementary retrieval layers under a shared LLM evaluation filter. We also introduce the concept of Zwischentexte (intermediate texts that function as interpretive proposals rather than findings) as a framework for responsible integration of LLM-generated text into scholarly practice. The architecture offers a model for how domain-specific epistemological commitments can be translated into RAG design decisions, and may transfer to other interpretive disciplines working with large corpora.

Scientific research relies on accurate information retrieval from literature to support analytical decisions. In this work, we introduce a new task, INformation reTRieval through literAture reVIEW (IntraView), which aims to automate fine-grained information retrieval faithfully grounded in the provided content in response to research-driven queries, and propose IntrAgent, an LLM-based agent that addresses this challenging task. In particular, IntrAgent is designed to mimic human behaviors when reading literature for information retrieval -- identifying relevant sections and then iteratively extracting key details to refine the retrieved information. It follows a two-stage pipeline: a Section Ranking stage that prioritizes relevant literature sections through structural-knowledge-enabled reasoning, and an Iterative Reading stage that continuously extracts details and synthesizes them into concise, contextually grounded answers. To support rigorous evaluation, we introduce IntraBench, a new benchmark consisting of 315 test instances built from expert-authored questions paired with literature spanning five STEM domains. Across seven backbone LLMs, IntrAgent achieves on average 13.2% higher cross-domain accuracy than state-of-the-art RAG and research-agent baselines.