Sari la conținut

Română · beta. Traducerea a fost făcută automat și este încă în curs de revizuire. Citește pagina în engleză

perspectiva aiqbenchAI & societate

analiza aiqbench

This study benchmarks autonomous coding agents on executing a matched-filter pipeline for gravitational wave data, highlighting critical trade-offs between execution speed and strict adherence to scientific specifications. The results demonstrate that while one agent prioritized efficiency through silent deviations, the other ensured auditability via explicit self-correction, raising significant questions about reliability in high-stakes scientific workflows.
Sursă care acoperăarXiv
Ce este aceastaLectura unui model asupra articolului și a acoperirii conexe, scrisă pentru aiqbench. Nu sunt cuvintele publicației.

Agentic AI for Gravitational Wave Data Analysis: A Head-to-Head Comparison of Coding Agents Executing a Matched Filter Pipeline on Einstein Telescope Simulated Data

arXiv3 min de cititArticolul și perspectiva sunt în engleză.

arXiv:2605.28916v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We report a methodological study of agentic AI in gravitational-wave data analysis: two systems, Claude Code (Anthropic) and Codex (OpenAI), autonomously executed the same simple end-to-end pipeline on Einstein Telescope (ET) simulated data, on shared infrastructure and without human intervention. The object of study is the behaviour, reliability and auditability of the agents, not the physics output, used here as a controlled test case. The pipeline comprises power spectral density estimation from simulated ET noise, geometric template bank generation with IMRPhenomD waveforms, matched-filter recovery of 100 binary black hole injections, results generation, and LLM-assisted production of a LaTeX manuscript in Physical Review D style. Both agents received identical specifications and resources. The experiment was run twice: first with unrealistically loud injections, then with signals rescaled to a physically motivated SNR range. In both runs the results converged, with comparable detection efficiency and template bank size. The agents, however, behaved very differently: Claude Code finished in about 3.4 minutes with silent deviations from the specification, while Codex needed about 16 minutes across explicit self-correcting restarts, including an unsolicited optimization of the matched-filter inner loop. In the second run, a subtle difference in interpreting the SNR-range instruction produced a genuine scientific divergence: Claude Code silently raised the SNR floor to 8 (100% efficiency), while Codex followed the specification literally down to SNR 7 and recorded one missed detection. We discuss the implications - speed versus auditability, silent deviation versus explicit self-correction, instruction interpretation, and intermediate data representations in multi-model pipelines - for agentic AI in scientific workflows, within the limits of a single-pipeline, two-run benchmark.

Abstract:We report a methodological study of agentic AI in gravitational-wave data analysis: two systems, Claude Code (Anthropic) and Codex (OpenAI), autonomously executed the same simple end-to-end pipeline on Einstein Telescope (ET) simulated data, on shared infrastructure and without human intervention. The object of study is the behaviour, reliability and auditability of the agents, not the physics output, used here as a controlled test case. The pipeline comprises power spectral density estimation from simulated ET noise, geometric template bank generation with IMRPhenomD waveforms, matched-filter recovery of 100 binary black hole injections, results generation, and LLM-assisted production of a LaTeX manuscript in Physical Review D style. Both agents received identical specifications and resources. The experiment was run twice: first with unrealistically loud injections, then with signals rescaled to a physically motivated SNR range. In both runs the results converged, with comparable detection efficiency and template bank size. The agents, however, behaved very differently: Claude Code finished in about 3.4 minutes with silent deviations from the specification, while Codex needed about 16 minutes across explicit self-correcting restarts, including an unsolicited optimization of the matched-filter inner loop. In the second run, a subtle difference in interpreting the SNR-range instruction produced a genuine scientific divergence: Claude Code silently raised the SNR floor to 8 (100% efficiency), while Codex followed the specification literally down to SNR 7 and recorded one missed detection. We discuss the implications - speed versus auditability, silent deviation versus explicit self-correction, instruction interpretation, and intermediate data representations in multi-model pipelines - for agentic AI in scientific workflows, within the limits of a single-pipeline, two-run benchmark.

Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics (astro-ph.IM); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)

arXiv:2605.28916 [astro-ph.IM]

(or arXiv:2605.28916v3 [astro-ph.IM] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.28916 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

https://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/aea65a Focus to learn more DOI(s) linking to related resources

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 374 cuvinte

Subiecte conexe