AI summary · arXiv: 2610.25111v1 · cs.AI

Explore or Confirm? LLM Agents Misallocate Measurements Under Noise

Abdul Karim, Matt Keon
Original paper Submitted to arXiv on 18 Oct. 2026 38 pages, 12 figures. Code, data and environment: https://github.com/Xstendyl/wellocate License: CC BY 4.0

How to read this summary? Illustrated guide

The essentials

In simulated noisy assay campaigns, five LLM agents misallocate measurement budgets by over-confirming or under-confirming, while candidate support helps some over-confirmers.

Question

How do language-model agents divide a fixed, noisy experimental budget between testing new candidates and repeating measurements? What causes over- or under-confirmation, and can simple aids or final re-testing improve their choices?

Method

The authors evaluate five LLMs as minimal agents in Wellocate: 15 rounds of four slots (60 measurements) on a generated NK landscape and scrambled GB1 and PhoQ protein landscapes, with known true values and simulated assay noise. They compare the agents with three scripted strategies and test aids including a reading summary, landscape information, and a list of untried candidates; they also replay Gemini 3.1 Pro campaigns with final-round re-tests.

Findings

  • Result On the grid, three models re-tested 75% to 94% of their slots, Gemini 3.1 Pro re-tested 14%, and every model’s final pick was worse than the guessing rule’s.
    See the passage in the paper
    On the grid every model’s final pick falls below the guessing rule’s 7.87, and re-testing less did not help Gemini 3.1 Pro or Sol pick better (Figure 1).
  • Authors’ interpretation The three over-confirming models’ main shortfall was exploration: they measured fewer distinct candidates and selected well among those they had tested.
    See the passage in the paper
    The over-confirmers lose through exploration (Figure 4). The best candidate they ever measured falls 0.94 to 1.04 short of the landscape’s best, against 0.67 for the guessing rule. Among what they tested they pick almost perfectly.
  • Result Providing a Menu of untried candidates reduced re-testing for all three over-confirmers, and on GB1 improved the final picks of Gemini 2.5 Flash and DeepSeek V3.1 by more than three true-value units.
    See the passage in the paper
    With it, their picks rose by more than three units of true value (Figure 5c).
  • Result For Gemini 3.1 Pro, replacing the final round with re-tests of its top three candidates recovered about 23% of its selection loss.
    See the passage in the paper
    Gemini 3.1 Pro’s pick improves as the re-tests are spread over more candidates, and at $m=3$ it recovers about 23% of its selection loss (Figure 5d).
  • Result The best re-testing rate depended on landscape and noise: at assay noise the grid favored one re-test per round, while GB1 and PhoQ favored none.
    See the passage in the paper
    At the real assay’s noise the grid peaks at one re-test a round. GB1 and PhoQ peak at none, and every re-test added makes the pick worse.

Limitations

  • The study covered only five models and three landscapes, so results may differ on other real landscapes.
    See the passage in the paper
    We compared five models on three landscapes, one generated and two real proteins under scrambled names, so other real landscapes may behave differently.
  • Wellocate omits several features of real laboratory work, and the study did not test whether misallocation changes with batch size or budget.
    See the passage in the paper
    Whether the agents’ misallocation depends on batch size or budget is not tested.
  • The agents were deliberately simple, with no tools or memory beyond the history in each prompt, so agents with additional capabilities may allocate budgets differently.
    See the passage in the paper
    An agent with tools, memory or a planning layer may split its budget differently.

Why it matters

The authors present Wellocate as a benchmark and reinforcement-learning environment for measuring how agents allocate noisy experimental budgets. Their results suggest that evaluation should assess the whole campaign’s allocation, not only the final recommendation, and that the appropriate balance between exploration and confirmation depends on the landscape and noise.

Written by AI from the paper. Passages are checked word for word against the text we analysed; the rest may contain errors.

AI-generated keywords: experimental design measurement replication exploration–exploitation trade-off protein landscapes language-model agents

Read further

  • Comprehensive Summary
  • Layman's Summary
  • Blog article
  • Original abstract
The paper examines how language-model agents should divide a fixed experimental budget between testing new candidates and repeating measurements of promising ones. Repeats can reduce the risk of selecting a candidate that appeared promising only because of noise, but each repeat takes a slot away from exploring other candidates. To study this trade-off, the authors introduce Wellocate, a simulated assay campaign in which the true quality of every candidate is known. Wellocate represents candidates as four-letter sequences drawn from a 20-letter alphabet. It uses a generated NK landscape, called the grid, as well as real GB1 and PhoQ protein landscapes with randomly scrambled amino-acid labels, reducing the chance that models can rely on remembered sequences. Each campaign lasts 15 rounds, with four measurement slots per round. Measurements are noisy, some viable orders fail, and non-viable candidates are rejected. At each round, the five tested language models receive the task and their complete campaign history. They have no tools or persistent memory beyond that history. The authors compare their performance with simple scripted strategies, including one that explores neighbours of its best candidate and repeats that candidate a fixed number of times, and a model-guided strategy. The authors distinguish two sources of loss: **exploration loss**, the gap between the best candidate measured and the landscape optimum, and **selection loss**, the gap between that best measured candidate and the final nomination. The models failed in both directions. On the grid, Opus 4.7, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and DeepSeek V3.1 over-confirmed, spending 75% to 94% of their used slots on repeats, compared with about 24% to 38% for the main scripted reference strategies. Gemini 3.1 Pro under-confirmed, repeating only 14%, while GPT-6.1 Sol was closer to the reference range at 44%. Every model’s mean final pick on the grid was worse than the guessing rule’s score of 7.87, on a scale where the optimum is 8.762. Model means ranged from 7.62 to 7.76. The over-confirming models mainly lost through insufficient exploration: they measured too few candidates but generally selected well among those they had tested. Gemini 3.1 Pro explored about as effectively as the guessing rule but incurred greater selection loss, often choosing a candidate based on a single reading. The authors tested aids designed to address these problems. A summary of prior measurements and an explanation of the landscape changed over-confirmation by no more than five percentage points. By contrast, a “Menu” of untried candidates ranked using a simple fitted model reduced repeat spending for all three over-confirming models. On scrambled GB1, Gemini 2.5 Flash and DeepSeek V3.1 tested an average of only 3.9 and 2.4 distinct candidates, respectively, without the Menu. With it, their final picks improved by more than three value units. For the under-confirming model, the authors replayed campaigns with the final round replaced by repeat measurements. This recovered only about 23% of Gemini 3.1 Pro’s selection loss, suggesting that confirmation needs to occur throughout a campaign rather than only at the end. The best repeat rate depended strongly on the landscape and noise level. At the assay’s simulated noise level, the best scripted strategy repeated about once per round on the grid but hardly repeated on GB1 or PhoQ. Repeats began to help on PhoQ at roughly four times the assay noise and on GB1 at roughly eight times the noise. A small reinforcement-learning policy trained only on generated landscapes matched the guessing rule on grid tests and outperformed all five language models on their grid campaigns. However, it did not consistently outperform the best scripted strategies or transfer reliably across proteins.

Was this synthesis useful?

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Figures and plots

Ask about a figure by number or use its question button to request visual analysis. Up to two figures and four image panels per question. Values read from plots are approximate; check the original data.

AI assistant instructions?

Tools for this paper

Explain it differently 3 free rewrites left today
Save to a collection Group papers in collections to compare them, chat with them and export them. Create a free account Log in

Advanced tools Premium

For researchers who follow a field closely: citation alerts, journal-club slides, version comparison and Zotero export. Discover Premium

Zotero
Citation alerts Citation alerts guide
Weekly letter Presented in "Artificial intelligence this week" of 26 October 2026. Artificial intelligence this week: What changes when AI meets the world

Papers around this one

See them on a map

Ranked by how close their title and abstract are to this paper’s. Select some to read them together.

Closest papers

  1. Close
    Efficient Exploration for LLMs
    Vikranth Dwaracherla, Seyed Mohammad Asghari, Botao Hao et al. · 2024 · Machine Learning · AI summary available
    Abstract

    We present evidence of substantial benefit from efficient exploration in gathering human feedback to improve large language models. In our experiments, an agent sequentially generates queries while fitting a reward model to the feedback received. Our best-performing agent generates queries using double Thompson sampling, with uncertainty represented by an epistemic neural network. Our results demonstrate that efficient exploration enables high levels of performance with far fewer queries. Further, both uncertainty estimation and the choice of exploration scheme play critical roles.

  2. Close
    Compressing the Validation Bottleneck: An Agentic Self-Driving Lab for Scientific Discovery
    Kyunghoon Hur, Chi-Hun Lee · 2026 · arXiv.org · Not summarized yet
    Abstract

    Agentic AI-for-Science can automate ideation, planning, and analysis, but final validation still depends on real experiments. A self-driving lab (SDL) can execute those experiments, yet the loop still has bottlenecks: the agent may spend too many rounds on low-value experiments, or each round may require a high-cost experiment. We target these two physical bottlenecks with one agent. First, a prior-aware agentic DOE loop uses domain knowledge and past results to propose feasible and informative next experiments, reducing trials-to-target. Second, a cost-aware surrogate agent predicts high-cost, high-resolution measurements from low-cost, low-resolution measurements. It chooses between a high…

  3. Close
    Invisibilization as a Source of Probability Bias in Language Models
    Christian Arnold, Ernesto Calvo, Guadalupe Gonzalez et al. · 2026 · Computation and Language · AI summary available
    In short

    Leading language models often refuse to assess reports based on the reporter’s description, producing racial gaps in information use that average-trust audits can miss.

  4. Close
    AlphaResearch: Accelerating New Algorithm Discovery with Language Models
    Zhaojian Yu, Kaiyue Feng, Yilun Zhao et al. · 2025 · arXiv.org · Not summarized yet
    Abstract

    LLMs have made significant progress in complex but easy-to-verify problems, yet they still struggle with discovering the unknown. In this paper, we present \textbf{AlphaResearch}, an autonomous research agent designed to discover new algorithms on open-ended problems by iteratively running the following steps: (1) propose new ideas (2) program to verify (3) optimize the research proposals. To synergize the feasibility and innovation of the discovery process, we construct a novel dual environment by combining the execution-based verifiable reward and reward from simulated real-world peer review environment in AlphaResearch. We construct \textbf{\dataset}, a set of questions that includes an e…

  5. Close
    AgentFly: Fine-tuning LLM Agents without Fine-tuning LLMs
    Huichi Zhou, Yihang Chen, Siyuan Guo et al. · 2025 · Machine Learning · AI summary available
    Abstract

    In this paper, we introduce a novel learning paradigm for adaptive Large Language Model (LLM) agents that eliminates the need for fine-tuning the underlying LLMs. Existing approaches are often either rigid, relying on static, handcrafted reflection workflows, or computationally intensive, requiring gradient updates of LLM model parameters. In contrast, our method enables low-cost continual adaptation via memory-based online reinforcement learning. We formalise this as a Memory-augmented Markov Decision Process (M-MDP), equipped with a neural case-selection policy to guide action decisions. Past experiences are stored in an episodic memory, either differentiable or non-parametric. The policy …

  6. Close Cited by this paper
    Can AI Scientist Agents Learn from Lab-in-the-Loop Feedback? Evidence from Iterative Perturbation Discovery
    G. Wainrib, B. Bodinier, Haitem Dakhli et al. · 2026 · arXiv.org · Not summarized yet
    Abstract

    Recent work has questioned whether large language models (LLMs) can perform genuine in-context learning (ICL) for scientific experimental design, with prior studies suggesting that LLM-based agents exhibit no sensitivity to experimental feedback. We shed new light on this question by carrying out 800 independently replicated experiments on iterative perturbation discovery in Cell Painting high-content screening. We compare an LLM agent that iteratively updates its hypotheses using experimental feedback to a zero-shot baseline that relies solely on pretraining knowledge retrieval. Access to feedback yields a $+53.4\%$ increase in discoveries per feature on average ($p = 0.003$). To test wheth…

  7. Close
    More Agents Is All You Need
    Junyou Li, Qin Zhang, Yangbin Yu et al. · 2024 · Computation and Language · AI summary available
    Abstract

    We find that, simply via a sampling-and-voting method, the performance of large language models (LLMs) scales with the number of agents instantiated. Also, this method is orthogonal to existing complicated methods to further enhance LLMs, while the degree of enhancement is correlated to the task difficulty. We conduct comprehensive experiments on a wide range of LLM benchmarks to verify the presence of our finding, and to study the properties that can facilitate its occurrence. Our code is publicly available at: \url{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/more_agent_is_all_you_need}.

  8. Close
    Fisher-R1: Training LLM Agents for Reliable Hypothesis Testing
    Jia-Cheng Miao, Jin Mu, Guan-Hua Chen et al. · 2026 · Not summarized yet
    Abstract

    Reliable hypothesis testing is the foundation of many empirical scientific claims. Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly used to automate this process, as they can inspect datasets, generate code, and produce analyses end-to-end. However, we show that they frequently make subtle inferential errors that lead to incorrect conclusions despite correctly executed analyses. Existing benchmarks fail to capture this failure mode, as they rarely assess whether a reported p-value is statistically valid given the assumptions underlying the data. We address this gap by building P-Bench, a benchmark comprising 425 open-ended, realistic hypothesis-testing tasks spanning economics, biology, an…

Prior work it builds on

  1. Close
    AllocBench: Measuring Online Tool Allocation Capability in LLM Agents
    Daniel Wang, Andrew Xu · 2026 · arXiv.org · Not summarized yet
    Abstract

    Creating a reusable tool is an investment: an agent pays a fixed cost now in exchange for the potential of future reuse. Therefore, a user should prefer an agent that creates a small number of highly reusable tools, rather than many one-offs. We introduce a paired benchmark that tests whether LLM agents exhibit conscious allocation behavior under a fixed budget in two contexts: an abstract text-based formulation and a code-construction task. We find that every frontier model we test---Claude Haiku, Claude Opus, GPT-5.4-mini, and GPT-5.6 Sol---acts near-optimally in the abstract framing but fails to transfer this ability to script-writing. Through further experiments, we identify the particul…

  2. Close
    LLMs for Bayesian Optimization in Scientific Domains: Are We There Yet?
    Rushil Gupta, Jason S. Hartford, Bang Liu · 2025 · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · Not summarized yet
    Abstract

    Large language models (LLMs) have recently been proposed as general-purpose agents for experimental design, with claims that they can perform in-context experimental design. We evaluate this hypothesis using both open- and closed-source instruction-tuned LLMs applied to genetic perturbation and molecular property discovery tasks. We find that LLM-based agents show no sensitivity to experimental feedback: replacing true outcomes with randomly permuted labels has no impact on performance. Across benchmarks, classical methods such as linear bandits and Gaussian process optimization consistently outperform LLM agents. We further propose a simple hybrid method, LLM-guided Nearest Neighbour (LLMNN…

  3. Close
    AgentHPOBench: A Benchmark For Evaluating LLM Agents as Sequential Hyperparameter Optimizers
    Tianyu Huai, Ting-Shuo Fan, Xin-Chi Chen et al. · 2026 · arXiv.org · Not summarized yet
    Abstract

    As LLMs evolve from code completion systems into autonomous scientific agents, evaluating their ability to conduct experiments has become increasingly important. Existing benchmarks typically focus on static code generation, paper replication, or final answer correctness, but do not directly assess whether agents can interpret experimental evidence and use it to guide subsequent hyperparameter decisions. To address this gap, we introduce AgentHPOBench, a sequential benchmark comprising 30 executable machine learning tasks across seven research categories. Each task begins with a validated baseline run, after which an agent performs several sequential interventions. At each step, the agent ob…

  4. Close
    Benchmarking and behavioral characterization of LLM agents for protein design
    Jeonghyeon Kim, P. Romero · 2026 · bioRxiv · Not summarized yet
    Abstract

    Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as agents for scientific discovery, but standardized frameworks for evaluating their performance and behavior in scientific workflows are lacking. Protein design provides a demanding test case because modern workflows combine stochastic generative models, structure prediction systems, and physics-based evaluation tools that require extensive candidate exploration and filtering. Here we introduce BioDesignBench, a benchmark of 76 expert-curated protein design tasks spanning antibodies, enzymes, fluorescent proteins, binders, and scaffolds, together with human and non-LLM baselines and behavioral metrics derived from tool-use traces. We ev…

  5. Related
    BioDiscoveryAgent: An AI Agent for Designing Genetic Perturbation Experiments
    Yusuf H. Roohani, Andrew H. Lee, Qian Huang et al. · 2024 · International Conference on Learning Representations · Not summarized yet
    Abstract

    Agents based on large language models have shown great potential in accelerating scientific discovery by leveraging their rich background knowledge and reasoning capabilities. In this paper, we introduce BioDiscoveryAgent, an agent that designs new experiments, reasons about their outcomes, and efficiently navigates the hypothesis space to reach desired solutions. We demonstrate our agent on the problem of designing genetic perturbation experiments, where the aim is to find a small subset out of many possible genes that, when perturbed, result in a specific phenotype (e.g., cell growth). Utilizing its biological knowledge, BioDiscoveryAgent can uniquely design new experiments without the nee…

How are these papers found?

We compare the title and abstract of this paper with those of every paper summarized on this site, and with the papers Semantic Scholar recommends, those it cites and those citing it (for a much-cited paper, its most recent citations and, from OpenAlex, the most cited ones). Among the prior work and the follow-ups, the papers that use each other in depth, a method it uses and the much-cited follow-ups come a little higher. The levels (very close, close, related) come from the similarity of the texts, not from a judgment of quality; * marks a paper without an abstract, compared by its title. The sentence under a paper is written by an AI from the two abstracts: check it in the papers. A paper marked not relevant by three readers leaves the list.

Updated on 31 October 2026.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.