PTB-Search is turned into PTB-Search, a one-generation method for componentized scientific discovery, which finds that LLMs are best understood as material suppliers; discovery is carried by external set-level selection over reusable components.
Abstract
Large language models are increasingly used as evolutionary engines for scientific discovery: generate candidates, select winners, feed them back as parents, and repeat. We audit whether this loop actually compounds discovery in scientific equation discovery, a setting where finite samples make structure underdetermined and interpolation easy. Under matched LLM-call budgets, parent-conditioned evolution is indistinguishable from fresh independent sampling: median OOD NMSE is 0.045 vs. 0.049, instructed multi-parent crossover is worse, final success is predicted by initial proposal quality, and multiple iteration schemes fail to add solved problems. Operationally, the loop reduces to what it produces: a dictionary of candidate terms. We turn that diagnosis into PTB-Search, a one-generation method for componentized scientific discovery. PTB-Search samples independent LLM proposals once, extracts reusable terms into a per-problem dictionary, and performs train-only set-level sparse selection with least-squares coefficients. Its central principle is that underdetermined data identifies the joint behavior of term sets, not reliable per-term credit. On identical dictionaries and zero additional LLM calls, set-level selectors solve 165--169 of 717 cells, while single-term reductions solve only 74--78. On the official 239-problem LLM-SRBench split, PTB-Search reaches 73.2% Acc0.1 with Llama-3.1-8B and 77.0% with a single-seed DeepSeek-V4 anchor, versus 49.2% for the best reported baseline, using one tenth of the standardized call budget. A program-domain stress test gives a scoped boundary: generation count remains unreliable, while retained external state can help in harder non-linear spaces. Across these results, LLMs are best understood as material suppliers; discovery is carried by external set-level selection over reusable components.
Analysis shows that many generated operators use semantics to guide selection, suggesting that LLMs can produce non-trivial search heuristics from the task description alone, and the relationship between public LLM leaderboard rankings and GP performance is examined.
Most current tasks remain suitable for evaluating the fitting and recombination of previously unseen expressions, but are insufficient on their own to identify contributions from priors beyond a fixed search space.
Autonomous discovery systems such as OpenEvolve and TTT-Discover are often used as general-purpose harnesses. However, in practice these are composite systems combining several design choices about archives, parent selection, exploration, and budget allocation into a single recipe. Because discovery runs are expensive and inherently stochastic, existing harnesses are often compared using too few independent trials to distinguish key methodological improvements from run-to-run variance. We systematically decompose OpenEvolve-style evolutionary search and the TTT-Discover search harness into its constituent components and systematically evaluate 30 budget-matched harnesses across 12 model-problem pairs using more than 3.1 million LLM rollouts and repeated-trial statistical analysis. Our results show that discovery harnesses have a generalization problem: No fixed harness is reliably superior across the evaluated model-problem pairs, and variants of OpenEvolve generally underperform simpler alternatives. Thus, harness choice is better viewed as a hyperparameter rather than as a universal recipe, and should be tailored to the specific problem and underlying model. We also find that early discovery progress predicts final performance, and use this property to present a budget-matched adaptive-allocation experiment that starts multiple harnesses, prunes weak partial runs, and reallocates compute to stronger survivors, outperforming both commitment to a randomly sampled fixed harness and a non-adaptive harness ensemble. Together, these results motivate shifting from fixed harness selection to online adaptation guided by early performance. We release all run pools including baseline null distributions for every model-problem pair as reusable statistical infrastructure against for future harness proposals.
Akshat Gupta, Jermaine Lei, Alexander Lu et al.· arXiv.org· 1 citation
This work compares configured Loreley QD, sequential champion editing, and independent root proposals in a matched Zstandard experiment and finds that Sequential had the highest observed 48-job mean and median and established a QD advantage.
The first compute-normalised comparison of five TTS families across five open-ended generation benchmarks spanning medicine, law, finance, general chat, and creative writing is conducted - grounded in a unified framework that decomposes the effectiveness of each method's token budget into exploration and exploitation.
Davide Romano, Kanak Raj, Jerrod Parker et al.· 0 citations
Closed-loop generative selection has become a workhorse of computational drug discovery: a learned generative model proposes candidate molecules, a fitness oracle scores them, the best are kept, and the model is retrained on this elite set before the next round. Despite its wide use, the method has lacked a rigorous convergence theory, largely because retraining the model each round breaks the Markov property on which classical evolutionary-algorithm analysis relies. We develop a self-contained theory of convergence and expected running time for this class of algorithms. By recovering a Markov structure on an enlarged state space, we show that elitism makes the search absorbing, and we prove almost-sure convergence together with a runtime bound that decomposes the search into the time spent escaping each fitness level. We then analyse the role of the model's memory---how much of the past it is trained on. When learning improves steadily with more data, deeper memory never hurts; when it does not, an exit-time analysis pinpoints the optimal memory depth and shows that excess memory can actually slow convergence. The theory extends to multi-objective search and to noisy oracles: we quantify how many repeated evaluations certify progress under light-tailed noise, and how robust estimators restore guarantees under heavy tails. Recast in terms of oracle evaluations - the true bottleneck in drug design - the analysis yields a concrete, evaluation-minimal strategy. Areproducible study confirms the predictions, including the surprising cost of excess memory. We close with three open problems.
K. Fackeldey, Christof Schütte· arXiv.org· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
