Large Discovery Models: Empirically-grounded Model-Based Open-Ended Search

Paper · arXiv 2608.15669 · Published August 16, 2026
Novel LLM Architectures

Scientific discovery often involves optimising expensive-to-evaluate objectives over vast, structured, and open-ended hypothesis spaces, such as molecules, protein sequences, and computer programs. Generative models such as large language models (LLMs) provide expressive priors over such spaces, but their likelihoods and self-assessments are unreliable proxies for the objectives and calibrated epistemic uncertainty, especially for novel candidates outside the observed data distribution. We introduce the Large Discovery Model (LDM), an empirically grounded recurrent architecture that couples a generative model with a Bayesian non-parametric reward surrogate model. The generative model proposes and refines candidate designs, while the surrogate predicts their performance and quantifies uncertainty, yielding an uncertainty-aware value that guides candidate generation, refinement, and selection. The discovery memory and the surrogate model are continually updated as each new experimental observation arrives. We evaluate LDM on three scenarios spanning different design modalities and objectives, including neural-network training, antibody design, and molecular optimisation.

Introduction. The development of large language models (LLMs) has progressed from open-ended generation towards increasingly capable forms of reasoning. Pretraining provides broad linguistic and conceptual knowledge, while inference-time scaling allows a model to generate, compare, and refine multiple candidate solutions. This approach has produced substantial gains in mathematics, coding, theorem proving, and game playing, where solutions may be difficult to find but comparatively easy to evaluate. Formal derivations can be assessed by process or outcome verifiers, programs can be executed against unit tests, and game strategies can be evaluated using exact rules or simulators (Yao et al., 2023a; Madaan et al., 2023; Snell et al., 2025). AlphaZero-like methods make this feedback loop explicit by combining generation, evaluation, and search (Silver et al., 2017; Feng et al., 2024b). OpenR (Wang et al., 2024) provides an open framework for studying such reasoning systems, while AlphaEvolve (Novikov et al., 2025) couples languagemodel proposals with automated evaluators at scale.

Discussion / Conclusion. , Limitations, and Outlook The core challenge of scientific discovery lies in searching for optimal solutions within vast, structured, and open-ended design spaces under a limited budget of costly evaluations. Existing paradigms exhibit complementary limitations: large language models (LLMs) possess strong structured generative capabilities and domain priors, but cannot reliably estimate the true value of external objectives or their associated uncertainty. Bayesian optimisation, by contrast, delivers uncertainty-aware experimental decisions from sparse observations, yet struggles to autonomously propose valid candidates in complex discrete spaces. This work presents the Large Discovery Model (LDM), an experiment-grounded recurrent architecture that deeply couples the generative prior of LLMs with the value signal from a Gaussian process surrogate.

Lines of inquiry this paper opens 19

Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.

Can confidence signals reliably detect flawed reasoning in language models? Why does AI verification capability persistently exceed generation capability? When do simpler collaborative filtering approaches outperform complex LLM recommenders? Can external verification systems adequately replace learned reasoning in AI outputs? How can we reduce inherent biases in LLM-based evaluation judges? How do AI hiring systems affect authenticity, fairness, and candidate preferences? Can smaller specialized models match frontier models on key metrics? How do users confuse explanation quality with actual system accuracy? Can we trust AI-generated mathematical proofs without understanding them? What limits language model accuracy in evaluating ideas? What causes coordination failures in multi-agent language model systems? Can mechanistic interpretability methods reliably reveal what models actually know? Do language models encode knowledge that influences generation, or primarily imitate surface patterns? Can AI systems discover fundamental improvements to their own architectures? How do models learn from self-generated outputs without cascading failures? Can AI systems achieve real improvement without external human feedback?