Skip to content

Beyond Natural Language: An Agent-Native Language for Autonomous Science

Sep 2026 · 0 citations
Computer Science

TL;DR

Lara, a machine-checkable language and protocol for checking and revising support for research claims, is introduced, and the metatheory of claim checking and cross-context argument transport is established, and semantic guarantees in Lean 4 are mechanized.

Abstract

As autonomous AI agents take on every stage of scientific inquiry, research output is expanding far beyond human review capacity. Yet scientific communication still relies on natural-language prose: an informal medium prone to ambiguity, hidden assumptions, and untracked limitations that machines cannot reliably audit. We introduce Lara, a machine-checkable language and protocol for checking and revising support for research claims. By turning research arguments into executable artifacts, Lara provides an epistemic kernel for autonomous science: it enables automated validation pipelines for research agents, lets declared bridges connect arguments across papers into an auditable network, and allows both humans and machines to recheck the standing of an encoded claim in milliseconds. In a Lara program, authors explicitly declare their claims, supporting evidence and assumptions, and known objections or limitations. A lightweight, deterministic checker adjudicates these interactions, assigning each claim a reproducible status:"justified","defeated","contested", or"gap", which marks a claim whose support is incomplete and locates the unanswered question. Case studies cover empirical review, a philosophical debate without measurements, and the loss of support when an assumed axiom is withdrawn. We establish the metatheory of claim checking and cross-context argument transport, and mechanize the semantic guarantees in Lean 4 (roughly 117,000 lines), leaving three arguments on paper. The audited public metatheory is"sorry"-free and uses only Lean's three standard axioms; some executable examples additionally trust native evaluation.

View source

Similar papers

#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

Explaining AI Agents Through Execution Traces

AI Agents are increasingly deployed in real-world settings, where they interact with external tools and make sequential decisions with limited human oversight. This creates a pressing need for reliable and auditable explanations of what an agent did and why. However, traditional Explainable AI (XAI) methods fall short...

Vittoria Vineis, Fabiano Veglianti, Lorenzo Antonelli et al. · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

NLPG: Natural-Language Policy Gradients for Self-Evolving Language Agents

Large language model agents increasingly rely on compound programs for retrieval, tool use, reasoning, and verification, yet their failures often arise from local procedural decisions. Existing reinforcement-learning and prompt-optimization approaches typically rely on scalar rewards or repeatedly modify entire prompts...

Xu Liu, Wen-Zhang Wei, Jun Cao et al. · 0 citations

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Sep 29, 2026

Who we become when we talk to machines

Professor Sherry Turkle’s new book, “Artificial Intimacy,” offers a withering critique of chatbots and the antisocial dynamics she believes they encourage.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.