Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42687023›Full record

ReviewNature2026

Designing physics experiments with artificial intelligence.

Jonathan Klimesch, Sören Arlt, Carlos Ruiz-Gonzalez, Carla Rodríguez, Xuemei Gu, Philipp Haslinger, Pietro Vischia, Christian Haack, Yehonathan Drori, Rana Adhikari and 4 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

14 authors.

Jonathan KlimeschDepartment for Computer Science, Faculty of Science, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. jonathan.klimesch@uni-tuebingen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-8902-9295
Sören ArltDepartment for Computer Science, Faculty of Science, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8320-5359
Carlos Ruiz-GonzalezMax Planck Institute for the Science of Light, Erlangen, Germany.
Carla RodríguezMax Planck Institute for the Science of Light, Erlangen, Germany.
Xuemei GuMax Planck Institute for the Science of Light, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0734-432X
Philipp HaslingerVienna Center for Quantum Science and Technology, Atominstitut, TU Wien, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2911-4787
Pietro VischiaDepartamento de Física and ICTEA, Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7088-8557
Christian HaackDepartment of Physics, FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3932-2448
Yehonathan DroriRaymond and Beverly Sackler School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Rana AdhikariInstitute for Quantum Information and Matter, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5731-5076
Markus ArndtVienna Center for Quantum Science and Technology (VCQ), Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9487-4985
Michael KaganSLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3386-6869
Lukas HeinrichDepartment of Physics, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4048-7584
Mario KrennDepartment for Computer Science, Faculty of Science, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. mario.krenn@uni-tuebingen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1620-9207

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Progress in physics has long been driven by ingenious experiments conceived by human experts. Recently, design methods driven by artificial intelligence (AI) have begun to move beyond tuning a handful of parameters to proposing entirely new experimental layouts. The discovered configurations often challenge established design conventions while matching or even exceeding the performance of human-designed set-ups. We frame experimental design as a search for optima over a vast space of hardware configurations subject to practical constraints and organize this Review around four guiding questions: how can we (1) engineer expressive search spaces; (2) build fast and reliable simulators; (3) translate scientific goals into computable objective functions; and (4) develop AI-based exploration methods that can navigate both discrete and continuous design choices. These questions place AI-driven design on a scale from parameter tuning to de novo discovery, and highlight the trade-offs between computational tractability, experimental feasibility, interpretability and solution reliability. Looking ahead, simulators spanning several physics domains, combined with large suites of experimental objectives, could discover unorthodox experimental concepts that are difficult to arrive at with human intuition alone. Ultimately, AI-designed experiments might thereby open new ways to explore the Universe.

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.