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