AI summary · arXiv: 2610.25111v1 · cs.AI
Explore or Confirm? LLM Agents Misallocate Measurements Under Noise
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.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
How to chat with this paper? Illustrated guide
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
Keep this conversation — a free account saves your questions and answers, your collections of papers and your alerts.
Create a free accountTools for this paper
Advanced tools Premium
For researchers who follow a field closely: citation alerts, journal-club slides, version comparison and Zotero export. Discover Premium
Papers around this one
See them on a mapRanked by how close their title and abstract are to this paper’s. Select some to read them together.
Closest papers
-
Efficient Exploration for LLMsVikranth 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.
-
Compressing the Validation Bottleneck: An Agentic Self-Driving Lab for Scientific DiscoveryKyunghoon 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…
-
Invisibilization as a Source of Probability Bias in Language ModelsChristian 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.
-
AlphaResearch: Accelerating New Algorithm Discovery with Language ModelsZhaojian 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…
-
AgentFly: Fine-tuning LLM Agents without Fine-tuning LLMsHuichi 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 …
-
Can AI Scientist Agents Learn from Lab-in-the-Loop Feedback? Evidence from Iterative Perturbation DiscoveryG. 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…
-
More Agents Is All You NeedJunyou 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}.
-
Fisher-R1: Training LLM Agents for Reliable Hypothesis TestingJia-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
-
AllocBench: Measuring Online Tool Allocation Capability in LLM AgentsDaniel 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…
-
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…
-
AgentHPOBench: A Benchmark For Evaluating LLM Agents as Sequential Hyperparameter OptimizersTianyu 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…
-
Benchmarking and behavioral characterization of LLM agents for protein designJeonghyeon 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…
-
BioDiscoveryAgent: An AI Agent for Designing Genetic Perturbation ExperimentsYusuf 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…
Go further
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.