analiza aiqbench
This study introduces DualityCert, a symbolic verification tool designed to validate Seiberg-duality claims in quantum field theory by checking anomaly matching and R-charge consistency. The research demonstrates how language-model agents can iteratively repair broken theoretical claims using this verifier as a gatekeeper, significantly improving success rates compared to single-attempt approaches or content-free retries. By combining rigorous physics constraints with AI-driven editing loops, the work establishes a new framework for automating complex quantum field theory proofs and reducing human error in high-dimensional gauge theories.
DualityCert: Verifier-Gated Language-Model Repair of Broken Duality Claims in Quantum Field Theory
arXiv:2607.23614v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present DualityCert, a symbolic verifier for candidate Seiberg-duality claims in four-dimensional N=1 quiver gauge theories. The verifier evaluates 't Hooft anomaly matching, superpotential R-charge consistency, central-charge matching, and a bounded chiral-ring proxy. A claim that passes receives a consistency certificate, which states that no tested inconsistency was found, not that the duality is proven. We use the verifier as a repair environment for language-model agents, which receive a deliberately broken claim and must edit it until it certifies. On a preregistered benchmark of 145 broken claims, with the analysis fixed before the first confirmatory model call, verifier-gated retry improves final repair success over a single attempt by +8.3 percentage points (pp) on deepseek-chat and +7.1 pp on qwen-plus (Holm-adjusted p<0.002). Under an equal budget of eleven attempts, the stop-first strategy portfolio underperforms independent verifier-filtered resampling by 10.3 percentage points on deepseek-chat but outperforms it by 14.7 points on qwen-plus, reversing the ordering of the two tested verifier-exploitation policies across the two confirmatory models. On qwen-plus, category-level verifier feedback is worth +8.7 pp over content-free retry, and interpretable obligation identities alone are worth +6.4 pp over structurally identical masked feedback. Neither effect is detected on deepseek-chat. Separately, a preregistered MiniMax-M2.5 extension again finds an iteration gain and independent verifier-filtered resampling outperforming the strategy portfolio. Which policy is better thus differs between the two models, while every winning policy uses the same cheap certificate. The verifier, benchmark, protocol, and all per-attempt records are released.
Abstract:We present DualityCert, a symbolic verifier for candidate Seiberg-duality claims in four-dimensional N=1 quiver gauge theories. The verifier evaluates 't Hooft anomaly matching, superpotential R-charge consistency, central-charge matching, and a bounded chiral-ring proxy. A claim that passes receives a consistency certificate, which states that no tested inconsistency was found, not that the duality is proven. We use the verifier as a repair environment for language-model agents, which receive a deliberately broken claim and must edit it until it certifies. On a preregistered benchmark of 145 broken claims, with the analysis fixed before the first confirmatory model call, verifier-gated retry improves final repair success over a single attempt by +8.3 percentage points (pp) on deepseek-chat and +7.1 pp on qwen-plus (Holm-adjusted p<0.002). Under an equal budget of eleven attempts, the stop-first strategy portfolio underperforms independent verifier-filtered resampling by 10.3 percentage points on deepseek-chat but outperforms it by 14.7 points on qwen-plus, reversing the ordering of the two tested verifier-exploitation policies across the two confirmatory models. On qwen-plus, category-level verifier feedback is worth +8.7 pp over content-free retry, and interpretable obligation identities alone are worth +6.4 pp over structurally identical masked feedback. Neither effect is detected on deepseek-chat. Separately, a preregistered MiniMax-M2.5 extension again finds an iteration gain and independent verifier-filtered resampling outperforming the strategy portfolio. Which policy is better thus differs between the two models, while every winning policy uses the same cheap certificate. The verifier, benchmark, protocol, and all per-attempt records are released.
16 pages, 2 figures, 9 tables. Code, benchmark, and all per-attempt records: this https URL
Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)
arXiv:2607.23614 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2607.23614v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.23614 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 · 365 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Six Principles of Voice Design: Designing for the Ear and Encoding It into Agent Script
Salesforce Blog · 8 oct. 2026

Echoverse: Deep, evolving environments for computer-use agents
Microsoft Research · 30 iul. 2026
Grow the Harness, Not the Context: From Strategy-Free Scaffolds to Reusable Specialist Agents
arXiv · 24 sept. 2026

Promptimus: Improving already good LLM prompts with zero manual engineering
Amazon Science · 14 mai 2026