Theory Under Construction: Orchestrating Language Models for Research Software Where the Specification Evolves
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models can now generate substantial code and draft research text, but research-software projects require more than either artifact alone. The mathematical thesis, executable system, benchmark surface, and public claims must mature together, yet often drift apart. We identify two LM-specific failure modes: hallucination accumulation, in which claims exceed what code or theory supports and unsupported assertions propagate across sessions; and desynchronization, in which code, theory, or the model's own world model fall out of alignment. We propose Comet-H, an iterative prompt automaton that orchestrates ideation, implementation, evaluation, grounding, and paper-writing as coupled coordinates of a single workspace state. At each step, a controller selects the next prompt by scoring it against what the workspace currently lacks, carries unfinished follow-up work forward with a half-life, and re-checks the paper and README against the code and benchmarks whenever documentation changes. We frame prompt selection as a small contextual bandit problem over prompt families, with prompts as arms, workspace deficits as context, and a hand-weighted linear score. This transparent scorer, paired with a fading record of unfinished work, bounds long-horizon follow-ups, requires no learned policy, and makes each prompt choice legible from the workspace. We created a portfolio of 46 research-software repositories across two dozen domains. We study A3 in depth, a Python static-analysis tool built entirely within the loop, which reaches (F1 = 0.768) on a 90-case benchmark, compared with a next-best baseline of 0.364. Across approximately 400 commits, we find that audit-and-contraction passes dominate the later phases of every successful trajectory.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 64 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Apr 2026.
Builds on
13 of 64 references.
References · 13
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,502
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,156
- 2023Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Modelscited by 2,135
- 2023MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Frameworkcited by 1,777
- 2024SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineeringcited by 1,676
- 2024The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discoverycited by 1,041
- 2024OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agentscited by 977
- 2023ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Developmentcited by 901
- 2025AlphaEvolve: A coding agent for scientific and algorithmic discoverycited by 819
- 2025Darwin Godel Machine: Open-Ended Evolution of Self-Improving Agentscited by 315
- 2024SciAgents: Automating scientific discovery through multi-agent intelligent graph reasoningcited by 93
- 2024Efficient Prompt Optimization Through the Lens of Best Arm Identificationcited by 37
1 more
- 2014SMT-based Model Checking for Recursive Programscited by 16
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025PromptBridge: Cross-Model Prompt Transfer for Large Language Models
- 2026Stateless Language Agents: Scaling Long-Horizon Automated Research
- 2026Refusing the Impossible: A Taxonomy and Benchmark for Code Hallucination in Large Language Models ↗
- 2025Artificial or Just Artful? Do LLMs Bend the Rules in Programming? ↗
- 2026How Generation Architecture Shapes Code Complexity in Multi-Agent LLM Systems: A Paired Study on HumanEval
- 2024Language hooks: a modular framework for augmenting LLM reasoning that decouples tool usage from the model and its prompt
- 2026Bias in the Loop: Auditing LLM-as-a-Judge for Software Engineering
- 2025Hierarchical Evaluation of Software Design Capabilities of Large Language Models of Code