LEAP: Trajectory-Level Evaluation of LLMs in Iterative Scientific Design

arXiv cs.LG Papers

Summary

The paper introduces LEAPBench, a 55-task framework for trajectory-level evaluation of LLMs in iterative scientific design, revealing that outcome-based scoring misses efficiency gains and that domain-agnostic prompting can outperform domain-aware prompting in matching published best designs.

arXiv:2605.15341v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs are increasingly deployed in autonomous laboratories, under the assumption that their domain priors and reasoning over iterative feedback let them converge on good designs in fewer iterations than feedback-only baselines. Current iterative scientific design benchmarks, however, score only outcome snapshots at fixed horizons. This leaves the learning trajectory unmeasured, even though the trajectory is what captures learning efficiency, where each iteration saved is a real saving in cost and time. Motivated by this, we examine three evaluation choices that change the conclusions one draws about LLM learning efficiency in iterative scientific design: what to measure, what baseline to compare against, and what to ground against. We introduce LEAPBench, Learning Efficiency in Adaptive Processes, a 55-task framework that pairs a best-so-far area under the curve (AUC) trajectory metric with a classical Bayesian-optimization reference and an audit grounded in published literature. Applied to eight contemporary LLMs, switching from final-outcome to trajectory scoring changes the best-model decision on 53% of tasks at matched horizons, and exposes efficiency gains overlooked by outcome-based scoring. LLMs do not outperform a classical Bayesian baseline. On 16 biology tasks where the oracle's reward signal is aligned with configurations from the published-best design, domain-aware prompting leads to LLM choices that match the published-best's approximately 10 percentage points less often than domain-agnostic prompting at iteration 30. The pattern is sharpest on 6 tasks where the literature-typical and published-best configurations diverge, and domain-agnostic prompting matches the published-best more often on all 6. The trajectory metric also doubles as a tractable training target. Offline reinforcement learning with the metric as a reward improves performance on 14 of 21 held-out tasks.
Original Article
View Cached Full Text

Cached at: 05/18/26, 06:40 AM

# LEAP: Trajectory-Level Evaluation of LLMs in Iterative Scientific Design
Source: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.15341](https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.15341)
[View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.15341)

> Abstract:LLMs are increasingly deployed in autonomous laboratories, under the assumption that their domain priors and reasoning over iterative feedback let them converge on good designs in fewer iterations than feedback\-only baselines\. Current iterative scientific design benchmarks, however, score only outcome snapshots at fixed horizons\. This leaves the learning trajectory unmeasured, even though the trajectory is what captures learning efficiency, where each iteration saved is a real saving in cost and time\. Motivated by this, we examine three evaluation choices that change the conclusions one draws about LLM learning efficiency in iterative scientific design: what to measure, what baseline to compare against, and what to ground against\. We introduce LEAPBench, Learning Efficiency in Adaptive Processes, a 55\-task framework that pairs a best\-so\-far area under the curve \(AUC\) trajectory metric with a classical Bayesian\-optimization reference and an audit grounded in published literature\. Applied to eight contemporary LLMs, switching from final\-outcome to trajectory scoring changes the best\-model decision on 53% of tasks at matched horizons, and exposes efficiency gains overlooked by outcome\-based scoring\. LLMs do not outperform a classical Bayesian baseline\. On 16 biology tasks where the oracle's reward signal is aligned with configurations from the published\-best design, domain\-aware prompting leads to LLM choices that match the published\-best's approximately 10 percentage points less often than domain\-agnostic prompting at iteration 30\. The pattern is sharpest on 6 tasks where the literature\-typical and published\-best configurations diverge, and domain\-agnostic prompting matches the published\-best more often on all 6\. The trajectory metric also doubles as a tractable training target\. Offline reinforcement learning with the metric as a reward improves performance on 14 of 21 held\-out tasks\.

## Submission history

From: Marilyn Zhang \[[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/f0f94c69/2605.15341)\] **\[v1\]**Thu, 14 May 2026 19:10:45 UTC \(303 KB\)

Similar Articles

LEAP: Supercharging LLMs for Formal Mathematics with Agentic Frameworks

arXiv cs.AI

LEAP is an agentic framework that enables general-purpose LLMs to achieve state-of-the-art performance in formal theorem proving in Lean, solving all 12 problems from the 2025 Putnam Competition and boosting formal solve rates from below 10% to 70% on a new benchmark (Lean-IMO-Bench), surpassing specialized systems.

PreAct-Bench: Benchmarking Predictive Monitoring in LLMs

arXiv cs.LG

PreAct-Bench is a benchmark of 1,000 paired ethical and unethical action trajectories across five domains, designed to evaluate the ability of LLMs to predict harmful outcomes from partial trajectories (predictive monitoring). Results show that while humans perform well, current LLMs struggle, highlighting the need for future-oriented risk reasoning.