arXiv:2608.16900v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Language-model agents increasingly produce quantum-science results; we ask whether the same agentic paradigm can also scrutinize them in an auditable, reproducible, and cost-transparent form. We present QuantumNovelty, an open-source skill-orchestrating language agent that both generates quantum-computing artifacts (papers, Pareto-front ansatz candidates, and patent drafts) and reviews them through simulated referee and patent-examiner panels. Its design contribution is an audit-and-falsify layer of deterministic gates — strict Pareto domination, numerical recomputation from on-disk artifacts, Wilson small-sample intervals, and a cross-vendor consensus guard — that constrains, rather than generates, the claims allowed to survive; every model call is logged with backend, token count, and cost. We make no accuracy claim against human experts, and validate only what is checkable without human labels: on a planted adversarial corpus the deterministic gates catch every planted overclaim with no false positives, and on a first deployment (six manuscripts and one granted patent, at a measured cost of about twenty-four US dollars) the panels are directionally more conservative than the public acceptance record, on a one-sided sample. The framework is decision support, not a replacement for peer review or patent examination, and we report in full where its mechanisms remain unexercised on real inputs.
Abstract: Language-model agents increasingly produce quantum-science results; we ask whether the same agentic paradigm can also scrutinize them in an auditable, reproducible, and cost-transparent form. We present QuantumNovelty, an open-source skill-orchestrating language agent that both generates quantum-computing artifacts (papers, Pareto-front ansatz candidates, and patent drafts) and reviews them through simulated referee and patent-examiner panels. Its design contribution is an audit-and-falsify layer of deterministic gates — strict Pareto domination, numerical recomputation from on-disk artifacts, Wilson small-sample intervals, and a cross-vendor consensus guard — that constrains, rather than generates, the claims allowed to survive; every model call is logged with backend, token count, and cost. We make no accuracy claim against human experts, and validate only what is checkable without human labels: on a planted adversarial corpus the deterministic gates catch every planted overclaim with no false positives, and on a first deployment (six manuscripts and one granted patent, at a measured cost of about twenty-four US dollars) the panels are directionally more conservative than the public acceptance record, on a one-sided sample. The framework is decision support, not a replacement for peer review or patent examination, and we report in full where its mechanisms remain unexercised on real inputs.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: