Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2608.29133

AI Historian: Helping historians organize and verify person-centred temporal clues from dispersed historical narratives

Abstract

History is not preserved in complete, continuous form. Accounts of a person's activities, relationships and historical contexts are scattered across texts, chapters and narrative perspectives; historians must retrieve, identify and compare these materials to reconstruct temporal sequences and verify them against sources. Here we present AI Historian (AIH), an AI agent system that helps historians organize person-time evidence from dispersed biographical narratives. It takes source sentences as evidence units, identifies people and temporal cues, verifies candidate cross-text associations and infers comparable temporal ranges while preserving traceable source-text evidence. We evaluated AIH on six Shiji cases concerning Liu Bang, Xiang Yu and Xiao He. AIH Agent achieved a temporal-localization MicroIoU of 86.2%, compared with 81.3% for human-only annotation and 17.1% for direct large-language-model prompting; it required about 14 min, versus 1 h 32 min for human-only annotation. We further applied AIH to the Twenty-Four Histories and other ancient Chinese histories, ancient Japanese and Korean histories, and modern and contemporary historical materials, and released the results through Westlake Historian. These results indicate that AIH can reduce the cost of organizing historical materials at scale while turning connections obscured by chapter-based narration into traceable, revisable research questions for collaborative testing.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Yifeng Lu, Zijie Yang, Jie Li, Qingkai Min, Yue Zhang. 2026-08-29. AI Historian: Helping historians organize and verify person-centred temporal clues from dispersed historical narratives. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29133

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

Informational Antilocality and the Locality Bias in LLMs

We consider the ability of transformer-based language models (LLMs) to learn what we call k-antilocal languages, i.e., languages that have no mutual information across any span of $k$ contiguous symbols. We construct such languages with increasing $k$, finding that LLMs trained on them achieve comparable cross-entropy loss regardless of antilocality, but converge more slowly on more antilocal languages. Our findings support the idea that non-local dependencies are more difficult to learn, but the evidence for this bias comes from learning speed rather than learning success.

cs.CL

Sleight of Word Benchmark: Can Language Models Notice If Their Own Output Was Tampered With?

The output of a Language Model can be tampered with \emph{while} the model is writing it. A simple test can thus be constructed by evaluating the model's perception of this external perturbation. In this spirit, a simple benchmark is built in which a single word is consistently substituted with another in the generation process. We call this method \emph{Sleight of Word}. Two distinct axes are measured: metrics that relate to the model's surprise, as well as an evaluation of the textual reaction for 19 different open-weight language models.

cs.CL

Do LLM Agents Mirror Socio-Cognitive Effects in Power-Asymmetric Conversations?

Power differences shape human communication through well documented socio cognitive effects, including language coordination, pronoun usage, authority bias, and harmful compliance. We examine whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit similar behaviors when assigned high or low status personas. Using personas from diverse professions, we simulate multi turn, power asymmetric dialogues (e.g., principal teacher, justice lawyer) and measure (i) language coordination, (ii) pronoun usage, (iii) persuasion success, and (iv) compliance with unsafe requests. Our results show that LLMs show key socio-cognitive effects of power, albeit with nuances and variability, linking simulated interactions to both desirable and unsafe behaviors.

cs.CL