Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42761044›Full record

ArticleNature machine intelligence2026

Large language models as uncertainty-calibrated optimizers for experimental discovery.

Bojana Ranković, Ryan-Rhys Griffiths, Philippe Schwaller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. A Guide to Bayesian Optimization in Bioprocess Engineering.Biotechnology and bioengineering · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Bojana RankovićInstitute of Chemical Sciences and Engineering, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-1476-6686
Ryan-Rhys GriffithsQuantumGreen, San Francisco, CA USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3117-4559
Philippe SchwallerInstitute of Chemical Sciences and Engineering, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-3046-6576

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CheminformaticsComputational methods

Identifiers

PMID42761044
PMCPMC13585549

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.