ArticleNature communications2025
Evaluating large language model agents for automation of atomic force microscopy.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-Driving Scanning Probe Microscopy: From Acceleration to Discovery and Manipulation.Accounts of chemical research · 2026Article
- AI for Accelerated Materials Discovery: From Generative Design to Autonomous Realization.Chemical reviews · 2026Article
- Practical Use of Advanced AI Frameworks on Real-Life Scientific Problems: Three Case Studies.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Prompt Engineering Accelerates the Data-Driven Discovery of Photocatalysts via an LLM-Based Model Ensemble Strategy.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Review
- General-Purpose Models for the Chemical Sciences: LLMs and Beyond.Chemical reviews · 2026Review
- The Five-Decade Journey of Small Cell Lung Cancer.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are transforming laboratory automation by enabling self-driving laboratories (SDLs) that could accelerate materials research. However, current SDL implementations rely on rigid protocols that fail to capture the adaptability and intuition of expert scientists in dynamic experimental settings. Here, we show that LLM agents can automate atomic force microscopy (AFM) through our Artificially Intelligent Lab Assistant (AILA) framework. Further, we develop AFMBench-a comprehensive evaluation suite challenging LLM agents across the complete scientific workflow from experimental design to results analysis. We find that state-of-the-art LLMs struggle with basic tasks and coordination scenarios. Notably, models excelling at materials science question-answering perform poorly in laboratory settings, showing that domain knowledge does not translate to experimental capabilities. Additionally, we observe that LLM agents can deviate from instructions, a phenomenon referred to as sleepwalking, raising safety alignment concerns for SDL applications. Our ablations reveal that multi-agent frameworks significantly outperform single-agent approaches, though both remain sensitive to minor changes in instruction formatting or prompting. Finally, we evaluate AILA's effectiveness in increasingly advanced experiments-AFM calibration, feature detection, mechanical property measurement, graphene layer counting, and indenter detection. These findings establish the necessity for benchmarking and robust safety protocols before deploying LLM agents as autonomous laboratory assistants across scientific disciplines.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.