Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2606.03755

LAP: An Agent-to-Instrument Protocol for Autonomous Science

Linwu Zhu·Liqiang Gao·Yan Chen·Dan Zhu·Jian Huang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Autonomous science is moving from demonstration to infrastructure. Large language model agents now plan experiments, and self-driving laboratories execute them. Yet every such system rebuilds the link between the reasoning agent and the physical instrument from scratch, against fragmented vendor SDKs and standards built for deterministic software clients rather than probabilistic, goal-directed agents. Recent agent-interoperability protocols clarify two of the three edges of an agentic ecosystem (Anthropic's Model Context Protocol (MCP) standardizes the agent-to-tool edge, and Google's Agent2Agent (A2A) the agent-to-agent edge), but neither models the agent-to-instrument edge, where operations are stateful, safety-critical, exclusively owned, physically embodied, and produce measurements with units, calibration, and uncertainty. We present the Lab Agent Protocol (LAP), a protocol design that fills this gap. LAP retains A2A's peer-to-peer, discovery-first, task-lifecycle structure and adds four physical-world primitives: (i) the InstrumentCard, a signed capability and physical-limit description; (ii) first-class reservation for exclusive instrument and sample locking; (iii) a safety-fence handshake with operator-confirmation tokens cryptographically bound to a specific task and its parameters, gating hazardous and irreversible operations; and (iv) a MeasurementResult schema that makes every result physically typed (QUDT/UCUM), calibration-anchored, uncertainty-bearing, and reproducible by construction. We specify roles, a six-layer architecture, the JSON-RPC method set, the task and safety state machines, the error model, and cross-laboratory federation, and walk a closed-loop autonomous campaign through the protocol end-to-end. LAP is transport-compatible with the A2A/MCP ecosystem and encapsulates rather than replaces existing device standards such as SiLA 2 and OPC-UA.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Linwu Zhu, Liqiang Gao, Yan Chen, Dan Zhu, Jian Huang. 2026-06-02. LAP: An Agent-to-Instrument Protocol for Autonomous Science. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.03755

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗