(Human) Attention Is (Still) All You Need: Human oversight makes AI-assisted social science reliable

LLM agents that conduct research (proposing ideas, writing and running code, analyzing results) can already carry a study from research question to figures, yet cannot be fully trusted. The same question asked twice in a row returns different answers; the agent announces a number that no execution produced, and tool use does not prevent this, because nothing binds what the agent reports to what its tools returned; a small upstream change leaves downstream results silently stale, with no way to list which ones; and the agent re-runs preprocessing and rewrites code it has already produced. We argue these failures share one root: every step of today's agent loop is a stochastic LLM call whose internal state nobody, including the agent, can check. Rather than trying to see inside the LLM, we take a lesson from databases, which earn trust without being watched, because deterministic operators over well-defined state make their guarantees hold by construction. We propose organizing a research project the same way. The project lives in a deterministic, versioned dataflow engine (in effect, a query plan over materialized views), and the LLM, together with the user, is a stochastic compiler that may only edit that plan. The executor never calls the LLM; LLM output enters only as versioned code and data that the executor then runs, and any asserted result enters the record only with an execution behind it. Five design rules at this boundary turn familiar database machinery, from versioning and provenance to incremental maintenance and cost-based scheduling, into guarantees that make research reliable, non-wasteful, transparent, and collaborative. This report presents the diagnosis, the requirements, and the design; the guarantee walkthrough, a prototype, and the research agenda appear in the full version, in preparation. The LLM, we argue, should be the query compiler, never the executor.

Large language model (LLM)-based systems are increasingly deployed to conduct scientific research autonomously, yet whether their reasoning adheres to the epistemic norms that make scientific inquiry self-correcting is poorly understood. Here, we evaluate LLM-based scientific agents across eight domains, spanning workflow execution to hypothesis-driven inquiry, through more than 25,000 agent runs and two complementary lenses: (i) a systematic performance analysis that decomposes the contributions of the base model and the agent scaffold, and (ii) a behavioral analysis of the epistemological structure of agent reasoning. We observe that the base model is the primary determinant of both performance and behavior, accounting for 41.4% of explained variance versus 1.5% for the scaffold. Across all configurations, evidence is ignored in 68% of traces, refutation-driven belief revision occurs in 26%, and convergent multi-test evidence is rare. The same reasoning pattern appears whether the agent executes a computational workflow or conducts hypothesis-driven inquiry. They persist even when agents receive near-complete successful reasoning trajectories as context, and the resulting unreliability compounds across repeated trials in epistemically demanding domains. Thus, current LLM-based agents execute scientific workflows but do not exhibit the epistemic patterns that characterize scientific reasoning. Outcome-based evaluation cannot detect these failures, and scaffold engineering alone cannot repair them. Until reasoning itself becomes a training target, the scientific knowledge produced by such agents cannot be justified by the process that generated it.

LLM coding agents make it tempting to automate empirical research by delegating experiments to them directly, but naive delegation does not scale to large projects: low-rate instruction lapses compound into broken, irreproducible artefacts. To address this problem, we present Glite ARF, an open-source Python framework for running many LLM coding agents in parallel on a research repository without sacrificing reproducibility or auditability. The framework defines a three-role stack: a human researcher chooses which hypotheses to test, coding agents (Claude Code, Codex CLI) implement individual tasks under a fixed structure, and deterministic Python verifier scripts enforce task isolation, immutability of completed work, a corrections overlay, and a materialised project overview. We call this verifier-driven research: the rules of the research process live in code that fails loudly when violated, not in prose that agents are merely asked to follow. Using Glite ARF, we developed our submission to the BEA 2026 vocabulary-difficulty shared task, placing first in the closed track and second in the open track on all three target languages (Spanish, German, Mandarin) and reducing the official baseline RMSE by 29.9% (closed) and 35.9% (open). The campaign comprised 273 tracked tasks (146 experiment runs) across 129 feature sets, run by up to twelve parallel agents orchestrated from a single laptop - with some model training on rented A100s - at approximately $450 in LLM API spend ($498 total third-party cost), and structured per-fold provenance let us catch and strip four target-leaking feature sets, correcting an implausible 0.609 RMSE to 0.802. Across three campaigns in three domains, the framework's structural machinery adds only about 1% of wall-clock time. Framework and a public demo project accompany this paper.