PreprintCited by 1Machine Learning in Materials ScienceArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsAcademic Writing and Publishing

Grounded autonomous research: a fault-tolerant LLM pipeline from corpus to manuscript in frontier computational physics

Open access
Huang, Haonan·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Autonomous-research agents have demonstrated end-to-end LLM automation in machine-learning sandboxes where execution provides calibration. Frontier physical science differs categorically: physical reasoning underlies every methodology choice, toolchains are often underdocumented, and calibration must come from external literature anchors - which unscaffolded agents cite but do not confront, hallucinating plausible, unverifiable results from internal priors. We present a pipeline that runs end-to-end from a corpus of 11,083 recent condensed-matter physics arXiv papers to a publication-grade manuscript with three substantive physics findings (here on altermagnetic piezomagnetism): the agent autonomously conceives a research direction by mapping the corpus, calibrates methodology by reproducing published references, conducts novel first-principles computations, and writes the manuscript - grounded in literature throughout, across 47 fresh-context sessions in six phases sharing only on-disk state, with 2,162 literature-consultation events. Fault tolerance emerges from redundancy: fresh-context isolation, distributed grounding, and adversarial review catch what any single session misses; pre- and post-pilot stages are fully autonomous, and pilot requires bounded human intervention only at reproduction failures - operational knowledge curation, not scientific direction. Two paired failure modes - a pre-architecture baseline and a no-pilot ablation - isolate structurally enforced numerical confrontation at calibration checkpoints as the operative grounding mechanism. The primitives, characterized failure modes, and quantified intervention pattern lay a foundation for autonomous research in high-stakes scientific domains beyond computational physics.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2607.02329

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In frontier physics, unscaffolded agents 'cite but do not confront' the literature anchors their claims depend on.

    “in frontier physics, unscaffolded agents 'cite but do not confront' the literature anchors their claims depend on [186].”

    From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [186]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huang, H.
Affiliations
Princeton University (US)
Corresponding author
Huang, Haonan
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7167276670
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
Keywords
large language models, fault tolerance, hallucinations, condensed matter physics, manuscript preparation, literature review automation, reproducibility, failure modes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review