Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41087366›Full record

ArticleNature communications2025

Evaluating large language model agents for automation of atomic force microscopy.

Indrajeet Mandal, Jitendra Soni, Mohd Zaki, Morten M Smedskjaer, Katrin Wondraczek, Lothar Wondraczek, Nitya Nand Gosvami, N M Anoop Krishnan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. The Five-Decade Journey of Small Cell Lung Cancer.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Indrajeet MandalSchool of Interdisciplinary Research, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8808-4602
Jitendra SoniDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8427-3860
Mohd ZakiDepartment of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4551-3470
Morten M SmedskjaerDepartment of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0476-2021
Katrin WondraczekLeibniz Institute of Photonic Technology, Jena, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6268-9136
Lothar WondraczekOtto Schott Institute of Materials Research, University of Jena, Jena, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0747-3076
Nitya Nand GosvamiSchool of Interdisciplinary Research, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, India. ngosvami@iitd.ac.in.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4082-9887
N M Anoop KrishnanSchool of Interdisciplinary Research, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, India. krishnan@iitd.ac.in.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1500-4947

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID41087366
PMCPMC12521570

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.