mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Scientific feedback reveals productive regimes beyond training conventions

arXiv 2512.15756 ↗First posted 12 Dec 2025cs.LG cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Human-imposed design conventions can restrict the alternatives represented in scientific training data and shape the search preferences learned by generative models. We show that scientific performance feedback can redirect the learned search distribution toward productive regions beyond those conventions, without explicitly rewarding departures from them. We test this process in reactor lattice design with simulated feedback and chemical reaction-condition selection with measured yields, using a pretrained sequence policy and a small non-language policy, respectively. In both settings, adaptation improves scientific performance while increasing generation of choices excluded from the corresponding supervised data. In measured reactions, probability on task-specific ligand choices excluded from training rises from 0.29 to 0.70-0.71 as expected yield error decreases. Controls in the lattice setting show that the productive region identified during adaptation provides reusable information to random search, while aligned generation produces useful candidates more frequently than informed random sampling. Removing the target penalty redirects four of five matched runs, linking the direction of adaptation to the scientific objective. Together, these results show how scientific feedback reshapes inherited search preferences and reveals productive alternatives beyond training conventions, with attribution controls distinguishing learned redistribution from candidate availability and reusable search information.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 56 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Dec 2025.

Builds on

12 of 56 references.

References · 12

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  3. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
  4. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  5. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  6. 2021Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learnerscited by 3,780
  7. 2025Gemma 3 Technical Reportcited by 1,824
  8. 2020Don't Stop Pretraining: Adapt Language Models to Domains and Taskscited by 1,565
  9. 2023Unifying the design space and optimizing linear and nonlinear truss metamaterials by generative modelingcited by 21
  10. 2024Integrating LLMs for Explainable Fault Diagnosis in Complex Systemscited by 7
  11. 2021Machine learning-assisted surrogate construction for full-core fuel performance analysiscited by 6
  12. 2024A Knowledge-Informed Large Language Model Framework for U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Shutdown Initiating Event Classification for Probabilistic Risk Assessmentcited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Reactor Optimization Benchmark by Reinforcement Learning
  2. 2026NuclearDiffusion: Text-to-Image Foundation Models for Learning Nuclear Energy Concepts
  3. 2025Agentic Physical AI toward a Domain-Specific Foundation Model for Energy Systems: A Case Study on Nuclear Reactor Control
  4. 2026SciDesignBench: Benchmarking and Improving Language Models for Scientific Inverse Design
  5. 2026NeutronGym: Physics-Graded Neutron Instrument Design for LLM Agents
  6. 2026AutoSAM: an Agentic Framework for Automating Input File Generation for the SAM Code with Multi-Modal Retrieval-Augmented Generation
  7. 2024M2PDE: Compositional Generative Multiphysics and Multi-component PDE Simulation
  8. 2026AutoMS: Multi-Agent Evolutionary Search for Cross-Physics Inverse Microstructure Design