mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Cost-Aware Recovery-Pathway Identification and Bayesian Optimization for Autonomous Materials Discovery

arXiv 2607.23896 ↗First posted 26 Jul 2026cs.AI cs.ROcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Autonomous laboratories automate experimental execution, but a campaign must also decide which recovery pathway merits optimization. We formulate this as a sequential decision problem with a discrete pathway-identification stage and a continuous within-pathway optimization stage under heterogeneous experimental costs. Our implementation, Coactive learning, combines a cost-sensitive Bayesian hypothesis-discrimination policy motivated by EC2 (Golovin et al., 2010) with Gaussian-process Bayesian optimization (Srinivas et al., 2010). Under explicitly stated assumptions, the expected spend of one fixed-budget campaign attempt is bounded by the expected pathway-identification cost plus the capped within-pathway optimization budget. We evaluate the method on synthetic benchmarks constrained by selected results reported for PNNL's CICERO selective-precipitation study (Ritchhart et al., 2026). The method performs comparably to an oracle-pathway Bayesian-optimization reference and to a strong split-plate baseline that discriminates pathways with its first plate, without receiving an oracle label for the correct pathway. It is given a candidate hypothesis space and a diagnostic likelihood model. On an NdFeB-inspired instance, it avoids the simulated penalty of a commit-first baseline that initially selects a plausible but inferior hydroxide pathway. This hypothetical wrong-first-commitment scenario is motivated by the hydroxide-oxalate performance contrast reported by CICERO. We characterize the sensitivity of these conclusions to the assumed cost model. The code and benchmark are open source.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Jul 2026.

Builds on

16 of 41 references.

References · 16

  1. 2018A Tutorial on Bayesian Optimizationcited by 734
  2. 2017A Tutorial on Thompson Samplingcited by 420
  3. 2017On Kernelized Multi-armed Banditscited by 348
  4. 2023Unexpected Improvements to Expected Improvement for Bayesian Optimizationcited by 144
  5. 2021Parallel Bayesian Optimization of Multiple Noisy Objectives with Expected Hypervolume Improvementcited by 115
  6. 2015Batch Bayesian Optimization via Local Penalizationcited by 103
  7. 2013Parallel Gaussian Process Optimization with Upper Confidence Bound and Pure Explorationcited by 50
  8. 2019Adaptivity in Adaptive Submodularitycited by 22
  9. 2021Multi-Step Budgeted Bayesian Optimization with Unknown Evaluation Costscited by 18
  10. 2023Active Learning and Bayesian Optimization: a Unified Perspective to Learn with a Goalcited by 17
  11. 2016Near-optimal Bayesian Active Learning with Correlated and Noisy Testscited by 6
  12. 2022Minimum Cost Adaptive Submodular Covercited by 5
4 more
  1. 2021A Tight Bound for Stochastic Submodular Covercited by 4
  2. 2026Agentic workflow enables the recovery of critical materials from complex feedstocks via selective precipitationcited by 2
  3. 2024Lower Bound on the Greedy Approximation Ratio for Adaptive Submodular Covercited by 1
  4. 2026Gaussian Process Bandit Optimization with Machine Learning Predictions and Application to Hypothesis Generationcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.