Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates whether LLM scientific agents adapt their fine-tuning configurations based on experimental feedback or solely rely on initial task context, specifically within neural operator adaptation for PDEs. The LLM consistently outperforms random search and Bayesian optimization in achieving lower held-out test nRMSE across various PDE transfers. Controlled interventions reveal that the LLM utilizes both a task-dependent prior, evident in its initial configuration selection, and dynamically adjusts its proposals in response to observed validation scores.
LLMs adapt neural operator configurations using both a strong task-dependent prior and real-time experimental feedback, outperforming Bayesian optimization.
Do LLM scientific agents rely only on their initial task context, or do they adapt their decisions in response to experimental feedback? We study this question in neural operator adaptation, where a large language model (LLM) selects fine-tuning configurations under a limited trial budget. Across transfers within and between partial differential equation (PDE) families, the LLM achieves lower held-out test nRMSE than random search and Bayesian optimisation in nearly every matched comparison. Endpoint performance alone cannot distinguish what happens, so we verify each attribution with controlled interventions. Before observing any validation score, the LLM's first configuration already ranks near the top of the corresponding random-search pool, indicating a useful initial bias. A complementary cold-start intervention shows that the selected base learning rate shifts with the PDE description. Once feedback becomes available, reassigning validation scores among evaluated configurations changes the next proposal in every case tested, whereas a value-preserving rewrite produces no comparable aggregate effect. These interventions establish that the LLM's decision-level actions respond to the given task and observed outcomes, showing that it combines a task-dependent prior with sensitivity to experimental feedback.