1. Franklin, A. Experiment, Right or Wrong (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990).

  2. Radder, H. The Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation (Univ. Pittsburgh Press, 2003).

  3. Shamos, M. H. Great Experiments in Physics: Firsthand Accounts from Galileo to Einstein (Courier Corporation, 1987).

  4. Krenn, M., Malik, M., Fickler, R., Lapkiewicz, R. & Zeilinger, A. Automated search for new quantum experiments. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 090405 (2016). This paper presents Melvin, an early AI-driven framework for the design of photonic quantum information experiments, with several of its proposed experimental configurations subsequently realized in laboratories.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Knott, P. A search algorithm for quantum state engineering and metrology. New J. Phys. 18, 073033 (2016). This paper presents Tachikoma, an early AI-driven framework for designing quantum metrology experiments, initially using genetic algorithms and later incorporating neural network surrogate models.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ruiz-Gonzalez, C. et al. Digital discovery of 100 diverse quantum experiments with PyTheus. Quantum 7, 1204 (2023). This paper presents PyTheus, a discovery framework for photonic quantum optics that enables efficient exploration of experimental designs via an overcomplete, physics-inspired continuous search space, yielding 100 diverse quantum experiments.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fürrutter, F., Muñoz-Gil, G. & Briegel, H. J. Quantum circuit synthesis with diffusion models. Nat. Mach. Intell. 6, 515–524 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Landgraf, J., Wanjura, C. C., Peano, V. & Marquardt, F. Artificial discovery of lattice models for wave transport. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.10693 (2025).

  9. Babazadeh, A. et al. High-dimensional single-photon quantum gates: concepts and experiments. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180510 (2017).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Erhard, M., Malik, M., Krenn, M. & Zeilinger, A. Experimental Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger entanglement beyond qubits. Nat. Photonics 12, 759–764 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Qian, K. et al. Multiphoton non-local quantum interference controlled by an undetected photon. Nat. Commun. 14, 1480 (2023).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Krenn, M., Hochrainer, A., Lahiri, M. & Zeilinger, A. Entanglement by path identity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 080401 (2017).

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wang, K. et al. Entangling independent particles by path identity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 233601 (2024).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Arlt, S., Ruiz-Gonzalez, C. & Krenn, M. Emulating multiparticle emitters with pair-sources: digital discovery of a quantum optics building block. Quantum Sci. Technol. 10, 015042 (2024).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. Paul, E., Landreman, M., Bader, A. & Dorland, W. An adjoint method for gradient-based optimization of stellarator coil shapes. Nucl. Fusion 58, 076015 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Goodman, A. G. et al. Quasi-isodynamic stellarators with low turbulence as fusion reactor candidates. PRX Energy 3, 023010 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Baranov, A. et al. Optimising the active muon shield for the SHiP experiment at CERN. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 934, 012050 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cisbani, E. et al. AI-optimized detector design for the future Electron-Ion Collider: the dual-radiator RICH case. J. Instrum. 15, P05009 (2020). This paper demonstrates the use of Bayesian optimization to improve the design of a large-scale particle physics detector within a fixed topology search space.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dorigo, T. et al. Toward the end-to-end optimization of particle physics instruments with differentiable programming. Rev. Phys. 10, 100085 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rolla, J. et al. Using evolutionary algorithms to design antennas with greater sensitivity to ultrahigh energy neutrinos. Phys. Rev. D 108, 102002 (2023). This paper demonstrates AI-driven design of highly sensitive ultrahigh energy neutrino antennas using evolutionary algorithms within a fixed topology search space.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Haack, C. et al. Machine-learning aided detector optimization of the Pacific Ocean Neutrino Experiment. In Proc. 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2023) id.1059 (2024).

  22. Dorigo, T. et al. Toward the end-to-end optimization of the SWGO array layout. Nucl. Phys. B 1017, 116934 (2025).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Krenn, M., Drori, Y. & Adhikari, R. X. Digital discovery of interferometric gravitational wave detectors. Phys. Rev. X 15, 021012 (2025). This paper demonstrates that AI-driven exploration of overcomplete interferometric topology search spaces can discover novel gravitational wave detector topologies that outperform current next-generation designs under realistic conditions.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Nehme, E. et al. DeepSTORM3D: dense 3D localization microscopy and PSF design by deep learning. Nat. Methods 17, 734–740 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Rodríguez, C., Arlt, S., Möckl, L. & Krenn, M. Automated discovery of experimental designs in super-resolution microscopy with XLuminA. Nat. Commun. 15, 10658 (2024).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Huang, P.-S., Boyken, S. E. & Baker, D. The coming of age of de novo protein design. Nature 537, 320–327 (2016).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sanchez-Lengeling, B. & Aspuru-Guzik, A. Inverse molecular design using machine learning: generative models for matter engineering. Science 361, 360–365 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Butler, K. T., Davies, D. W., Cartwright, H., Isayev, O. & Walsh, A. Machine learning for molecular and materials science. Nature 559, 547–555 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sigmund, O. & Maute, K. Topology optimization approaches: a comparative review. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 48, 1031–1055 (2013).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Duris, J. et al. Bayesian optimization of a free-electron laser. Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 124801 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Vendeiro, Z. et al. Machine-learning-accelerated Bose-Einstein condensation. Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043216 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Degrave, J. et al. Magnetic control of tokamak plasmas through deep reinforcement learning. Nature 602, 414–419 (2022).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Reinschmidt, M., Fortágh, J., Günther, A. & Volchkov, V. V. Reinforcement learning in cold atom experiments. Nat. Commun. 15, 8532 (2024).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Buchli, J. et al. Improving cosmological reach of a gravitational wave observatory using Deep Loop Shaping. Science 389, 1012–1015 (2025).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rainforth, T., Foster, A., Ivanova, D. R. & Bickford Smith, F. Modern Bayesian experimental design. Stat. Sci. 39, 100–114 (2024).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. DeZoort, G., Battaglia, P. W., Biscarat, C. & Vlimant, J.-R. Graph neural networks at the Large Hadron Collider. Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 281–303 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Dax, M. et al. Real-time inference for binary neutron star mergers using machine learning. Nature 639, 49–53 (2025).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Rajabzadeh, T., Boulton-McKeehan, A., Bonkowsky, S., Schuster, D. I. & Safavi-Naeini, A. H. A general framework for gradient-based optimization of superconducting quantum circuits using qubit discovery as a case study. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.12704 (2024).

  39. MacLellan, B. et al. Inverse design of photonic systems. Laser Photonics Rev. 18, 2300500 (2024).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  40. Crafts, J., Fatemi, R., Horn, T. & Kalinkin, D. Performance optimization for a scintillating glass electromagnetic calorimeter at the EIC. J. Instrum. 19, C05049 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Wang, J., Bacharach, L., Larzabal, P. & El Korso, M. N. A comparison of antenna placement criteria based on the Cramér–Rao and Barankin bounds for radio interferometer arrays. Signal Process. 219, 109404 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Miao, H., Yang, H., Adhikari, R. X. & Chen, Y. Quantum limits of interferometer topologies for gravitational radiation detection. Class. Quantum Gravity 31, 165010 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  43. Shirobokov, S., Belavin, V., Kagan, M., Ustyuzhanin, A. & Baydin, A. G. Black-box optimization with local generative surrogates. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 33, 14650–14662 (2020). This paper introduces a trust-region-constrained generative surrogate model as a novel optimization method for design tasks with black-box stochastic simulators.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Fanelli, C. et al. AI-assisted optimization of the ECCE tracking system at the Electron Ion Collider. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 1047, 167748 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Schillings, P. & Erdmann, J. Fighting Newtonian noise with gradient-based optimization at the Einstein Telescope. Class. Quantum Gravity 42, 065025 (2025).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  46. Badaracco, F., Harms, J. & Rei, L. Joint optimization of seismometer arrays for the cancellation of Newtonian noise from seismic body waves in the Einstein telescope. Class. Quantum Gravity 41, 025013 (2024).

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  47. Kagan, M. & Heinrich, L. Branches of a tree: taking derivatives of programs with discrete and branching randomness in high energy physics. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.16680 (2023).

  48. Hughes, T. W., Minkov, M., Williamson, I. A. & Fan, S. Adjoint method and inverse design for nonlinear nanophotonic devices. ACS Photonics 5, 4781–4787 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Sapra, N. V. On-chip integrated laser-driven particle accelerator. Science 367, 79–83 (2020). This paper demonstrates the AI-driven discovery of an on-chip integrated laser-driven particle accelerator by exploring a parametric topology search space encoded as a permittivity distribution.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Huang, S.-Y. et al. Multiphoton quantum interference at ultracompact inverse-designed multiport beam splitter. Opt. Quantum 3, 576–582 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Menke, T. et al. Automated design of superconducting circuits and its application to 4-local couplers. npj Quantum Inf. 7, 49 (2021). This paper demonstrates AI-driven discovery of novel superconducting quantum circuits through automated search over a slot-based topology search space.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  52. Qasim, S. R., Owen, P. & Serra, N. Physics instrument design with reinforcement learning. Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol. 6, 035033 (2025).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  53. Cervera-Lierta, A., Krenn, M. & Aspuru-Guzik, A. Design of quantum optical experiments with logic artificial intelligence. Quantum 6, 836 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Liu, H., Simonyan, K. & Yang, Y. Darts: differentiable architecture search. In Proc. 7th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2019) (2019).

  55. Zhang, S.-X., Hsieh, C.-Y., Zhang, S. & Yao, H. Differentiable quantum architecture search. Quantum Sci. Technol. 7, 045023 (2022).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Sim, S., Johnson, P. D. & Aspuru-Guzik, A. Expressibility and entangling capability of parameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum-classical algorithms. Adv. Quantum Technol. 2, 1900070 (2019). This paper proposes practical metrics for evaluating the expressibility of parameterized quantum circuits, informing the design of overcomplete topology search spaces.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Olle, J., Yevtushenko, O. M. & Marquardt, F. Scaling the automated discovery of quantum circuits via reinforcement learning with gadgets. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.11638 (2025).

  58. Mirhoseini, A. et al. A graph placement methodology for fast chip design. Nature 594, 207–212 (2021).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Arlt, S. et al. Meta-designing quantum experiments with language models. Nat. Mach. Intell. 8, 148–157 (2026).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Wallnöfer, J., Melnikov, A. A., Dür, W. & Briegel, H. J. Machine learning for long-distance quantum communication. PRX Quantum 1, 010301 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Edelen, A. et al. Machine learning for orders of magnitude speedup in multiobjective optimization of particle accelerator systems. Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 23, 044601 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Kasim, M. F. et al. Building high accuracy emulators for scientific simulations with deep neural architecture search. Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol. 3, 015013 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  63. Citrin, J. et al. Fast transport simulations with higher-fidelity surrogate models for ITER. Phys. Plasmas 30, 062501 (2023).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Ruiz-Gonzalez, C. et al. Neural surrogates for designing gravitational wave detectors. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.19364 (2025).

  65. Woźniak, K. A. et al. End-to-end optimal detector design with mutual information surrogates. Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol. 6, 045047 (2025). This paper demonstrates end-to-end particle physics detector design using a trust-region-constrained surrogate model and a general information-theoretic objective function.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  66. Schmidt, K. et al. End-to-end detector optimization with diffusion models: a case study in sampling calorimeters. Particles 8, 47 (2025).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Martínez, M. P., Vidal, X. C. & Vischia, P. Automatic optimization of a parallel-plate avalanche counter with optical readout. Particles 8, 26 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Bein, S., Connor, P., Pedro, K., Schleper, P. & Wolf, M. Refining fast simulation using machine learning. In Proc. 26th International Conference on Computing in High Energy and Nuclear Physics (CHEP 2023) 09032 (EDP Sciences, 2024).

  69. Schuetz, A.-K., Poon, A. W. & Li, A. RESuM: a rare event surrogate model for physics detector design. In Proc. Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2025) (2025).

  70. Adelmann, A. et al. New directions for surrogate models and differentiable programming for High Energy Physics detector simulation. In Proc. 2021 U.S. Community Study on the Future of Particle Physics (2022).

  71. Krause, C. et al. CaloChallenge 2022: a community challenge for fast calorimeter simulation. Rep. Prog. Phys. 88, 116201 (2025). This paper documents the CaloChallenge, a popular competition in the AI and particle physics communities aimed at developing diverse generative models to accelerate calorimeter simulation.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  72. Bradbury, J. et al. JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs. GitHub https://github.com/jax-ml/jax (2018).

  73. Paszke, A. et al. PyTorch: an imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 32, 8024–8035 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Abadi, M. et al. TensorFlow: a system for large-scale machine learning. In Proc. 12th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI ’16) 265–283 (2016).

  75. Kaiser, J., Xu, C., Eichler, A. & Santamaria Garcia, A. Bridging the gap between machine learning and particle accelerator physics with high-speed, differentiable simulations. Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 27, 054601 (2024).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  76. Citrin, J. et al. TORAX: a fast and differentiable tokamak transport simulator in JAX. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.06718 (2024).

  77. Klimesch, J., Drori, Y., Adhikari, R. X. & Krenn, M. Differometor: a differentiable interferometer simulator for the computational design of gravitational wave detectors. GitHub https://github.com/artificial-scientist-lab/Differometor (2025).

  78. El-Kishky, A. et al. Competitive programming with large reasoning models. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.06807 (2025).

  79. Novikov, A. et al. AlphaEvolve: a coding agent for scientific and algorithmic discovery. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.13131 (2025).

  80. Moses, W. & Churavy, V. Instead of rewriting foreign code for machine learning, automatically synthesize fast gradients. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 33, 12472–12485 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  81. Sagebaum, M., Albring, T. & Gauger, N. R. High-performance derivative computations using CoDiPack. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 45, 1–26 (2019).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  82. Sagan, D., Hoffstaetter, G., Signorelli, M. & Coxe, A. Bmad-Julia: a Julia environment for accelerator simulations including machine learning. In Proc. 15th International Particle Accelerator Conference (IPAC’24) 2562–2565 (2024).

  83. Wan, J., Alamprese, H., Ratcliff, C., Qiang, J. & Hao, Y. JuTrack: a Julia package for auto-differentiable accelerator modeling and particle tracking. Comput. Phys. Commun. 309, 109497 (2025).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Aehle, M. et al. Optimization using pathwise algorithmic derivatives of electromagnetic shower simulations. Comput. Phys. Commun. 309, 109491 (2025).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Aehle, M., Blühdorn, J., Sagebaum, M. & Gauger, N. R. Forward-mode automatic differentiation of compiled programs. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 51, 1–25 (2025).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  86. Aehle, M. et al. Efficient forward-mode algorithmic derivatives of Geant4. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.02966 (2024).

  87. Christodoulou, S. & Naumann, U. Differentiable programming: efficient smoothing of control-flow-induced discontinuities. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.06692 (2023).

  88. Arya, G., Schauer, M., Schäfer, F. & Rackauckas, C. Automatic differentiation of programs with discrete randomness. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 35, 10435–10447 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Aehle, M. et al. Exploration of differentiability in a proton computed tomography simulation framework. Phys. Med. Biol. 68, 244002 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Silvano, C. et al. A survey on deep learning hardware accelerators for heterogeneous HPC platforms. ACM Comput. Surv. 57, 1–39 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Li, M. et al. The deep learning compiler: a comprehensive survey. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 32, 708–727 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Aycock, J. A brief history of just-in-time. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 35, 97–113 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Bociort, F. Why are there so many system shapes in lens design? Proc. SPIE 7849, 114–126 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  94. Li, H., Xu, Z., Taylor, G., Studer, C. & Goldstein, T. Visualizing the loss landscape of neural nets. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 31, 6391 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  95. Richardson, J. W., Pandey, S., Bytyqi, E., Edo, T. & Adhikari, R. X. Optimizing gravitational-wave detector design for squeezed light. Phys. Rev. D 105, 102002 (2022).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Meyer, J. J., Borregaard, J. & Eisert, J. A variational toolbox for quantum multi-parameter estimation. npj Quantum Inf. 7, 89 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  97. O’Driscoll, L., Nichols, R. & Knott, P. A. A hybrid machine learning algorithm for designing quantum experiments. Quantum Mach. Intell. 1, 5–15 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Dorigo, T. et al. On the codesign of scientific experiments and industrial systems. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.26613 (2026).

  99. Nichols, R., Mineh, L., Rubio, J., Matthews, J. C. & Knott, P. A. Designing quantum experiments with a genetic algorithm. Quantum Sci. Technol. 4, 045012 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  100. Bindel, D., Landreman, M. & Padidar, M. Understanding trade-offs in stellarator design with multi-objective optimization. J. Plasma Phys. 89, 905890503 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Ruiz, F. J. et al. Quantum circuit optimization with AlphaTensor. Nat. Mach. Intell. 7, 374–385 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Zen, R., Nägele, M. & Marquardt, F. Reusability report: optimizing T count in general quantum circuits with AlphaTensor-Quantum. Nat. Mach. Intell. 8, 113–117 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Venugopalan, G., Salces-Cárcoba, F., Arai, K. & Adhikari, R. X. Global optimization of multilayer dielectric coatings for precision measurements. Opt. Express 32, 11751–11762 (2024).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. McClean, J. R., Boixo, S., Smelyanskiy, V. N., Babbush, R. & Neven, H. Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes. Nat. Commun. 9, 4812 (2018).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Kingma, D. P. & Ba, J. Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. In Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2015).

  106. Krenn, M., Kottmann, J. S., Tischler, N. & Aspuru-Guzik, A. Conceptual understanding through efficient automated design of quantum optical experiments. Phys. Rev. X 11, 031044 (2021).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Landreman, M. et al. SIMSOPT: a flexible framework for stellarator optimization. J. Open Source Softw. 6, 3525 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  108. Strong, G. C. et al. TomOpt: differential optimisation for task- and constraint-aware design of particle detectors in the context of muon tomography. Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol. 5, 035002 (2024).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  109. Zaher, Z. et al. Optimization of a cosmic muon tomography scanner for cargo border control inspection. J. Appl. Phys. 138, 194903 (2025).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. Hvarfner, C., Hellsten, E. O. & Nardi, L. Vanilla Bayesian optimization performs great in high dimensions. In Proc. 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML’24) 20793–20817 (PMLR, 2024).

  111. Giuliani, A. Direct stellarator coil design using global optimization: application to a comprehensive exploration of quasi-axisymmetric devices. J. Plasma Phys. 90, 905900303 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Roussel, R. et al. Bayesian optimization algorithms for accelerator physics. Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 27, 084801 (2024).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  113. Flam-Shepherd, D. et al. Learning interpretable representations of entanglement in quantum optics experiments using deep generative models. Nat. Mach. Intell. 4, 544–554 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Olle, J., Zen, R., Puviani, M. & Marquardt, F. Simultaneous discovery of quantum error correction codes and encoders with a noise-aware reinforcement learning agent. npj Quantum Inf. 10, 126 (2024).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  115. Trenkwalder, L. M., López-Incera, A., Nautrup, H. P., Flamini, F. & Briegel, H. J. Automated gadget discovery in the quantum domain. Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol. 4, 035043 (2023).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  116. Sarra, L., Ellis, K. & Marquardt, F. Discovering quantum circuit components with program synthesis. Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol. 5, 025029 (2024).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  117. Kundu, A. & Sarra, L. Reinforcement learning with learned gadgets to tackle hard quantum problems on real hardware. Commun. Phys. 9, 44 (2026).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Melnikov, A. A., Sekatski, P. & Sangouard, N. Setting up experimental Bell tests with reinforcement learning. Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 160401 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Valcarce, X., Sekatski, P., Gouzien, E., Melnikov, A. & Sangouard, N. Automated design of quantum-optical experiments for device-independent quantum key distribution. Phys. Rev. A 107, 062607 (2023).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. Landgraf, J., Peano, V. & Marquardt, F. Automated discovery of coupled-mode setups. Phys. Rev. X 15, 021038 (2025). This paper introduces autoscatter, an AI-driven discovery framework for interpretable wave-scattering devices that can find counterintuitive and simpler architectures than human designs.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  121. Côté, G., Lalonde, J.-F. & Thibault, S. Deep learning-enabled framework for automatic lens design starting point generation. Opt. Express 29, 3841–3854 (2021).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Fürrutter, F., Chandani, Z., Hamamura, I., Briegel, H. J. & Muñoz-Gil, G. Synthesis of discrete–continuous quantum circuits with multimodal diffusion models. Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol. 7, 025065 (2026).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  123. Zoccheddu, S., Qasim, S. R., Owen, P. & Serra, N. Large language models for physics instrument design. Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol. 7, 045005 (2026).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Wang, H. et al. Efficient evolutionary search over chemical space with large language models. In Proc. Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2025) (2025).

  125. Lu, D., Malof, J. M. & Padilla, W. J. An agentic framework for autonomous metamaterial modeling and inverse design. ACS Photonics 12, 6071–6080 (2025).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  126. Barman, K. G. et al. Large physics models: towards a collaborative approach with large language models and foundation models. Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 1066 (2025).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  127. Foreback, M. et al. ECLIPSE: an Evolutionary Computation Library for Instrumentation Prototyping in Scientific Engineering. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.05098 (2026).

  128. Fasoli, A. et al. Computational challenges in magnetic-confinement fusion physics. Nat. Phys. 12, 411–423 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  129. Lauro, L. D. et al. Optimization methods for integrated and programmable photonics in next-generation classical and quantum smart communication and signal processing systems. Adv. Opt. Photonics 17, 526–622 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Kostelecký, V. A. & Russell, N. Data tables for Lorentz and CPT violation. Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 11–31 (2011). This paper presents a systematic extension of the standard model with hundreds of parameters, each of them being a potential objective for AI-driven experimental design.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  131. Russell, N. E. Mining the Data Tables for Lorentz and CPT Violation. In Proc. Eighth Meeting on CPT and Lorentz Symmetry 82–85 (World Scientific, 2020).

  132. Will, C. M. in General Relativity and John Archibald Wheeler 73–93 (Springer, 2010).

  133. DeMille, D., Doyle, J. M. & Sushkov, A. O. Probing the frontiers of particle physics with tabletop-scale experiments. Science 357, 990–994 (2017).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Hamilton, P. et al. Atom-interferometry constraints on dark energy. Science 349, 849–851 (2015).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Pikovski, I., Vanner, M. R., Aspelmeyer, M., Kim, M. & Brukner, Č. Probing Planck-scale physics with quantum optics. Nat. Phys. 8, 393–397 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  136. Lo, A. et al. Acoustic tests of Lorentz symmetry using quartz oscillators. Phys. Rev. X 6, 011018 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  137. Arndt, M. & Hornberger, K. Testing the limits of quantum mechanical superpositions. Nat. Phys. 10, 271–277 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  138. Safronova, M. et al. Search for new physics with atoms and molecules. Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025008 (2018).

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  CAS  Google Scholar 

  139. Arlt, S., Gu, X. & Krenn, M. Towards autonomous quantum physics research using LLM agents with access to intelligent tools. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.11752 (2025).

  140. Baek, J., Jauhar, S. K., Cucerzan, S. & Hwang, S. J. ResearchAgent: iterative research idea generation over scientific literature with large language models. In Proc. 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) 6709–6738 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2025).

  141. Gu, X. & Krenn, M. Forecasting high-impact research topics via machine learning on evolving knowledge graphs. Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol. 6, 025041 (2025).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  142. Sourati, J. & Evans, J. A. Accelerating science with human-aware artificial intelligence. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7, 1682–1696 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Cadena, S. A. et al. ConStellaration: a dataset of QI-like stellarator plasma boundaries and optimization benchmarks. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 38, 17351–17377 (2025).

  144. Elitez, D. et al. ColliderML: the first release of an OpenDataDetector high-luminosity physics benchmark dataset. In Machine Learning and the Physical Sciences Workshop at NeurIPS 2025 (2025).

  145. Carleo, G. & Troyer, M. Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks. Science 355, 602–606 (2017).

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. De Regt, H. W. Understanding Scientific Understanding (Oxford Univ. Press, 2017).

  147. Krenn, M. et al. On scientific understanding with artificial intelligence. Nat. Rev. Phys. 4, 761–769 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  148. Brown, D. D. et al. FINESSE. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12662017 (2025).

  149. The LIGO Scientific Collaboration et al. Advanced LIGO. Class. Quantum Gravity 32, 074001 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar