LEAP: Trajectory-Level Evaluation of LLMs in Iterative Scientific Design
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.
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
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.
What Makes an LLM a Good Optimizer? A Trajectory Analysis of LLM-Guided Evolutionary Search
Large-scale study of 15 LLMs across 8 tasks reveals that optimization success hinges on maintaining localized search trajectories rather than initial problem-solving ability or solution novelty.
Before the Action: Benchmarking LLMs on Prospective Hypothesis Discovery
The paper introduces HypoArena, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs' ability to proactively construct hypothesis spaces from incomplete evidence, and experiments on 15 frontier LLMs reveal capability stratification.
Are LLMs Ready for Scientific Discovery? A Capability-Oriented Benchmark for AI Scientists
Introduces SDABench, a benchmark evaluating LLMs on six scientific analysis capabilities across five domains, finding models struggle with tasks requiring assumption selection and mechanistic reasoning.
PreAct-Bench: Benchmarking Predictive Monitoring in LLMs
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.