Identifying a meaningful quantum speedup requires more than matching a classical problem to a familiar quantum primitive: the claim must preserve the task, respect access and output models, expose required promises, and remain within a defensible complexity scope. We present QuantumMind, an auditable agentic workflow for generating and conservatively screening quantum-acceleration hypotheses. A fixed sequence of typed, role-specialized actions formalizes the public task, analyzes structure and classical bottlenecks, matches a source-linked registry of quantum primitives and barriers, and constructs a scoped candidate scheme. A deterministic ten-check validator assigns the authoritative verdict; completed states are compiled into a Quantum Acceleration Evidence Graph and passed through a downward-only research screen that cannot strengthen the decision. We evaluate QuantumMind against seven task-adapted prompting and agentic controls on 582 identical open-discovery tasks. Under the frozen Open-Discovery Score (ODS), QuantumMind obtains 53.1 mean ODS, exceeding the strongest baseline by 17.3 points (48.2% relative), and wins 355 of 582 paired tasks against that baseline. It passes the graph audit on 99.8% of tasks, compared with 43.6% for the strongest baseline, and ranks first in all seven task families. The results indicate that typed state transitions and deterministic evidence control contribute beyond fluent generation alone.
Constantin Dalyac, Alexandre Dauphin, Loïc Henriet +1quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gas cs.AI
Quantum computers are moving from research laboratories to industrial machines accessible via the cloud and integrated into high-performance computing facilities. However, translating theoretical quantum protocols into hardware experiments remains a major bottleneck, requiring expertise across protocol design, compilation, simulation, and cloud execution. Here, we introduce an agentic workflow that automates this pipeline on neutral-atom quantum processors (here two Pasqal QPUs available on the cloud) while keeping the researcher in the loop for critical validation. In three case studies from many-body physics and optimization, the agent went from published paper or patent to a QPU campaign run overnight. In particular, human intervention was crucial to ensure scientific validity: the agent selected an inadequate observable in one experiment and constructed a plausible but incorrect hardware diagnosis in another, with both failures detected only through domain-expert review. Finally, we use a second agent to classify a corpus of 633 Rydberg-array arXiv papers and show that nearly half are implementable on present-day QPUs while identifying specific hardware upgrades needed for the rest. Together, these results demonstrate that agentic workflows provide a practical bridge between theoretical ideas and physical hardware, opening quantum experimentation to a much broader scientific community.
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.