ArticleNature machine intelligence2026
Large language models as uncertainty-calibrated optimizers for experimental discovery.
Article in Nature machine intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Guide to Bayesian Optimization in Bioprocess Engineering.Biotechnology and bioengineering · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
From reaction optimization to molecular design, experimental discovery poses the same expensive question: which candidate to test next under time and resource constraints. Bayesian optimization provides principled answers but depends on domain expertise that rarely transfers. Large language models (LLMs) contain rich scientific knowledge but lack the calibrated uncertainty estimates crucial for high-stakes decisions. Here we show how training language models through Bayesian objectives enables their use as reliable optimizers guided by natural language. Our approach, GOLLuM (Gaussian process Optimized LLMs), teaches LLMs from experimental outcomes under uncertainty, transforming their overconfidence from a fundamental flaw into a precise learning signal. This signal reshapes the LLM embeddings so that experiments with similar outcomes cluster together, revealing structure in the design space. Starting from only ten low-performing experiments, GOLLuM generalizes across 23 tasks in organic synthesis, materials science, process chemistry and molecular design, ranking first on average among all competing methods. It matches traditional Bayesian optimization with over 40% fewer experiments and nearly doubles the discovery of high-performing Buchwald-Hartwig reactions over expert quantum-chemical descriptors and state-of-the-art LLMs (43% versus 24-25%). More broadly, GOLLuM points to a different paradigm for specializing foundation models: not through more data but through richer, uncertainty-guided information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.