analiza aiqbench
This study demonstrates a practical division of labor where an LLM agent formulates hypotheses and analyzes data for nitrogen-vacancy quantum sensing, while deterministic code handles hardware control to ensure safety. The research highlights that increasing reasoning effort can introduce false positives in specific benchmarks unless constrained by explicit signal calculations, offering critical insights into optimizing autonomous scientific workflows.
Agentic AI for Scientific Reasoning in Autonomous Quantum Sensing Experiments
arXiv:2607.25145v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We implement an agentic AI workflow built around a large language model (LLM) agent for autonomous experiments with nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers in diamond. NV centers are a widely used platform for quantum sensing, and the ability to control many measurements from a computer makes NV experiments a natural setting for autonomous workflows. We make two main contributions. First, we demonstrate an autonomous NV experiment workflow that combines persistent project records, quantitative calculation and data analysis tools, and deterministic experiment control. In one autonomous experiment, the agent selected a single NV center, calibrated its resonant frequency, measured \(T_2^\ast\) with Ramsey measurements, and added a Carr--Purcell--Meiboom--Gill (CPMG) measurement to check a weak feature that could be related to nearby \(^{13}\mathrm{C}\). Second, we introduce two offline benchmarks that evaluate the agent's reasoning separately from laboratory execution. We evaluated both benchmarks with GPT-5.4, GPT-5.5, and GPT-5.6 Sol. In the Ramsey checkpoint benchmark, greater reasoning effort generally improved recognition of a residual resonance calibration offset. By contrast, in the pulsed optically detected magnetic resonance (pODMR) data evaluation benchmark, pulse sequence information alone produced more false positive resonance judgments at higher reasoning effort. Requiring an expected signal calculation kept false positive rates low across all three models and reasoning settings. The results suggest a clear division of labor for autonomous experiments. The agent forms scientific hypotheses and uses quantitative tools to evaluate data, while deterministic code controls the hardware and enforces safety constraints.
Abstract:We implement an agentic AI workflow built around a large language model (LLM) agent for autonomous experiments with nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers in diamond. NV centers are a widely used platform for quantum sensing, and the ability to control many measurements from a computer makes NV experiments a natural setting for autonomous workflows. We make two main contributions. First, we demonstrate an autonomous NV experiment workflow that combines persistent project records, quantitative calculation and data analysis tools, and deterministic experiment control. In one autonomous experiment, the agent selected a single NV center, calibrated its resonant frequency, measured \(T_2^\ast\) with Ramsey measurements, and added a Carr--Purcell--Meiboom--Gill (CPMG) measurement to check a weak feature that could be related to nearby \(^{13}\mathrm{C}\). Second, we introduce two offline benchmarks that evaluate the agent's reasoning separately from laboratory execution. We evaluated both benchmarks with GPT-5.4, GPT-5.5, and GPT-5.6 Sol. In the Ramsey checkpoint benchmark, greater reasoning effort generally improved recognition of a residual resonance calibration offset. By contrast, in the pulsed optically detected magnetic resonance (pODMR) data evaluation benchmark, pulse sequence information alone produced more false positive resonance judgments at higher reasoning effort. Requiring an expected signal calculation kept false positive rates low across all three models and reasoning settings. The results suggest a clear division of labor for autonomous experiments. The agent forms scientific hypotheses and uses quantitative tools to evaluate data, while deterministic code controls the hardware and enforces safety constraints.
Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2607.25145 [quant-ph]
(or arXiv:2607.25145v1 [quant-ph] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.25145 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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 · 334 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Synthesis Superintelligence: from Semiconductors to Superconductors — Periodic Labs’ Liam Fedus and Ekin Dogus Cubuk
Latent Space · 8 oct. 2026

A New Era of Discovery: Google Research at I/O 2026
Google Research · 28 mai 2026
What's Continual Learning, and Why Might We Expect To See It In Advanced LLM Agents?
LessWrong · 12 iun. 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026