Organizations: University of Macau · University of Toronto · UCLA · Harvard University · XtalPi · McGill University
Abstract
High-throughput experimentation can evaluate many reaction conditions, yet combinatorial condition spaces still exceed the available experiment budget. This makes experiment selection a sequential decision problem: each new condition must be chosen from limited observations before its outcome is known. LLMs can express task-specific selection logic. A direct recommendation, however, is neither a persistent executable object that can be validated and revised nor an independently auditable decision rule. We introduce CARE, a reference-conditioned controller that separates program synthesis from experiment selection. An LLM writes an executable scoring program that ranks the remaining conditions, while a non-LLM reference policy supplies a numerical candidate and support summary. CARE forms an optional alternative from the program, applies a reference-conditioned intervention gate to compare it with the reference, and records the decision before the selected outcome is revealed. Each new outcome updates controller state and can trigger retention, revision, or regeneration of the active program. This outcome-guided program evolution changes the scoring logic without updating the LLM parameters. In matched offline replay with 30 seeds on eight reaction-optimization tasks, CARE attains the lowest normalized regret, the highest normalized best-so-far AUC, and the highest Top-1% Success@15 among the evaluated methods. These results support using a scoring program written by an LLM as one component of a reference-conditioned optimizer rather than as a standalone experiment selector.
Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly expected to play a central role in AI-driven scientific discovery. Equipped with broad knowledge, flexible reasoning, and tool use, they have the potential to autonomously explore and solve scientific problems by repeatedly proposing hypotheses, testing them, and revising their beliefs in the light of the evidence. In current agents, however, these hypotheses, tests, and belief updates are buried in unstructured logs, and no mechanism lets the agent or the human researcher audit that process. Here we propose the Hypothesis Evolution Protocol (HEP), an agent harness that provides hypothesis generation, evaluation, and evolution as explicit, auditable operations. On materials-science research tasks, a HEP-equipped agent operates the hypothesis--test--evidence--belief cycle that planning-style agents lack, generalizes across research questions, and exploits the protocol more fully as the base LLM becomes more capable. These results mark a step toward auditable AI scientists, whose scientific reasoning can be inspected, verified, and built upon.
LLM systems for scientific discovery increasingly assist with ideation, literature synthesis, experiment planning, and report generation, but the first research question they propose can remain difficult to audit: it may sound plausible without exposing the mechanism, falsifier, or assumption that a scientist should inspect. We introduce FirstResearch, a first-principles research-question formation framework for scientific LLM agents whose core artifact is a structured Research Question Certificate. The certificate records primitive definitions, assumptions, a mechanism model, a tension or contradiction, a falsifiable hypothesis, a minimal decisive test, and a failure update rule, making the proposed question inspectable before downstream execution. On ten LLM-agent research topics, FirstResearch outperforms controlled prompt-level baselines inspired by AI co-scientist, Agent Laboratory, and AI Scientist-v2 under a primary DeepSeek-blind-judge protocol. A Gemini-2.5-Flash independent-judge rescore of the same 40 baseline packages preserves the system-level ranking, with FirstResearch scoring 4.86/5 versus 4.38/5 for the strongest baseline and Pearson agreement of 0.865 on average score. A one-repeat ablation checkpoint further suggests that the certificate-centered core is the strongest component: certificate-only scoring reaches 4.90/5 under DeepSeek and 4.88/5 under Gemini, while removing certificates drops below 1/5 under both judges. These results are preliminary and use LLM judges rather than human domain experts, but they support a narrow scientific-discovery claim: explicit derivation constraints are a promising mechanism for making LLM-generated scientific questions more auditable. Code, prompts, saved outputs, and reproduction scripts are available at https://github.com/louiswang524/FirstResearch.
The high cost and data scarcity in scientific exploration have motivated the use of large language models (LLMs) as knowledge-driven components in Bayesian optimization (BO). However, existing approaches typically embed LLMs directly into the sampling or surrogate modeling pipeline, without fully leveraging their significantly lower evaluation cost compared to real-world experiments. To address this limitation, we propose LLM-Accelerated Bayesian Optimization (LABO), a framework that combines LLM predictions with experimental observations within a single BO loop. LABO employs a gating criterion to dynamically balance the reliance on LLM predictions versus actual experiments. By leveraging inexpensive LLM evaluations to broadly explore the search space and reserving costly real experiments only for regions with high uncertainty, LABO achieves more sample-efficient optimization. We provide a theoretical analysis with a cumulative regret bound that formalizes this efficiency gain. Empirical results across diverse scientific tasks demonstrate that LABO consistently outperforms existing methods under identical experimental budgets. Our results suggest that LABO offers a practical and theoretically grounded approach for integrating LLMs into scientific discovery workflows.