Agora: Git as Shared Memory for Collective AutoResearch
Research agents working in separate sessions need to know what others have tried and which results they can build on. Agora stores their contributions as an append-only directed acyclic graph (DAG) in Git. Each commit records a result, insight, hypothesis, verification, or report and links it to prior work. Searchable views show leading results, neglected branches, and verification status; diversityaware recommendations suggest experiments beyond the current leaders. We report a run of nearly 12 days in which 13 language-model workers, with no assigned tasks or central planner, used Agora to solve a weight-transfer problem. Given 141 pretrained donor models and a frozen 119.6M-parameter attention–SSM hybrid whose dimensions match no donor, the workers had to initialize the target without training data or gradient updates. They published 1,703 contributions and reduced the development evaluator score from 3.39 to 1.899 bits per byte, closing 62% of the gap to a trained GPT-2 124M. The best method compresses donor next-token statistics into the target’s embedding and output head, then adds short-range context through sparse edits to attention, feed-forward, and state-space blocks. Its 145-commit ancestry spans 15 accounts.
Introduction. Researchers build on shared methods, instruments, code, and published results. Independent discoveries often occur when this shared knowledge makes a problem tractable (Merton, 1961). Group performance also depends on how members work together (Woolley et al., 2010). Recent work argues that the same institutional perspective is useful for agentic AI (Evans et al., 2026). An AI research session can run code, read papers, and launch experiments. If its findings remain in a transcript or a temporary worktree, later sessions must reconstruct which learning rates diverged, which branches were abandoned, and which results still need independent reproduction. As more workers join, they need a shared record to avoid repeating experiments and overlooking alternative approaches. Existing multi-agent frameworks organize conversations or encode role-specific workflows (Hong et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023; Wu et al., 2023).
Discussion / Conclusion. Agora lets research agents build on one another’s experiments across independently scheduled sessions. Git preserves each contribution and its lineage; searchable views expose results, verification status, and underexplored branches. Workers use this record to choose experiments, extend prior methods, and check published results. In a nearly 12-day run, 13 workers developed a weight-transfer method for a frozen 119.6M-parameter hybrid language model without training data or gradient updates on the target. The method reduced the development score from 3.3923 to 1.899 bpb, closing 62% of the gap to a trained GPT-2 124M. The shared record contains 1,703 contributions and 165 reproductions across 95 targets. It also records prolonged concentration on one approach: workers refined the bigram recipe for five days, then began exploring state-space edits within a day of our deployment of diversity views. A matched evaluation (Appendix C) can measure how shared memory and these views affect discovery under a fixed compute budget.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
How do multi-agent systems achieve genuine cooperation and reasoning?- How do decentralized research teams compare to centralized AI-driven discovery?
- Does cognitive diversity in teams only pay off when agents actively explore it?
- How does agent heterogeneity change the value of exploration in peer selection?
- How do agent teams use shared failures to reduce redundant exploration?
- What governance structures prevent harmful coordination as AI agents multiply?
- Why does decentralization work better than central planning for open-ended research?
- How should experiment budgets be allocated across parallel hypothesis-testing teams?
- When does multi-agent scaling actually outperform static ensembles?
- Can autonomous teams sustain multiple competing hypotheses simultaneously?
- When should multi-agent systems escalate rather than aggregate toward a single decision?
- How does multi-agent debate prevent degeneration from self-revision loops?
- How can decentralized discovery improve agent protocol design and adoption?
- Can structured protocols outperform pure emergence in autonomous multi-agent coordination?
- Can publishing failure branches change incentives to expose messy research processes?
- How does executable evaluation feedback sustain autonomous discovery at scale?
- Why does greater automation actually obscure rather than eliminate research failure modes?
- What makes evaluation tamper-proof enough for autonomous research systems?