aiqbench analysis
This study benchmarks frontier LLMs in Bayesian Optimization for biochemical discovery, revealing a competence gap where models overreact to new data due to context-stickiness rather than entrenching on priors. The research demonstrates that removing in-context history restores effective exploration, suggesting that decoupling prior knowledge from incoming data is essential for reliable scientific agents. No tested configuration decisively outperformed statistical baselines across seven combinatorial datasets spanning protein engineering and molecular design.
LLM sequential decision making under uncertainty in biochemical domains
arXiv:2609.33061v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to drive scientific discovery. Understanding how LLMs make decisions from new data and memory of the literature is vital before trusting them to design experiments under tight experimental budgets. However, their decision strategies are invisible in the current performance scores used to evaluate research agents. Here, we benchmark five frontier LLMs in a Bayesian Optimization setting against published statistical baselines on seven combinatorial datasets spanning protein engineering, reaction optimization, molecular design, peptide self-assembly, and catalysis. Performance is paired with direct measurements of model beliefs and actions, enabling highly resolved behavior analysis. A prompt ablation that progressively strips context separates memorization from chemical reasoning and from bare categorical optimization. Prior chemical knowledge helps in expectation, but with high variance and occasionally even harms performance. No configuration tested decisively beats a mean statistical baseline across domains. Belief-movement and Martingale diagnostics, corrected here for a measurement-noise bias that mislabels rational agents as irrational, show that models overreact to incoming data rather than entrenching on their priors in the contexts studied here. Interestingly, while LLM actions are exploitative, models sincerely intend to explore and consistently act on that intent. This failure is a competence gap arising from context-stickiness. Removing in-context history restores exploration, indicating that priors and data must be decoupled to achieve effective LLM-driven discovery.
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to drive scientific discovery. Understanding how LLMs make decisions from new data and memory of the literature is vital before trusting them to design experiments under tight experimental budgets. However, their decision strategies are invisible in the current performance scores used to evaluate research agents. Here, we benchmark five frontier LLMs in a Bayesian Optimization setting against published statistical baselines on seven combinatorial datasets spanning protein engineering, reaction optimization, molecular design, peptide self-assembly, and catalysis. Performance is paired with direct measurements of model beliefs and actions, enabling highly resolved behavior analysis. A prompt ablation that progressively strips context separates memorization from chemical reasoning and from bare categorical optimization. Prior chemical knowledge helps in expectation, but with high variance and occasionally even harms performance. No configuration tested decisively beats a mean statistical baseline across domains. Belief-movement and Martingale diagnostics, corrected here for a measurement-noise bias that mislabels rational agents as irrational, show that models overreact to incoming data rather than entrenching on their priors in the contexts studied here. Interestingly, while LLM actions are exploitative, models sincerely intend to explore and consistently act on that intent. This failure is a competence gap arising from context-stickiness. Removing in-context history restores exploration, indicating that priors and data must be decoupled to achieve effective LLM-driven discovery.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
I.2.6; I.2.7; I.2.8; J.2; J.3
arXiv:2609.33061 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.33061v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.33061 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 318 words
Related coverage
Reinforcement Learning: From Algorithms To Foundation Models
arXiv · Jul 21, 2026
Debating RSI, the US-China Gap, and Jaggedness with JS Denain of Epoch AI
Interconnects · Sep 22, 2026

How to Solve the Right Problem in the Age of Agentic AI
Towards Data Science · Sep 3, 2026
Amazon is investing in the Lean Focused Research Organization
Amazon Science · Jul 26, 2026