Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper formalizes scientific discovery as a meta-optimization problem, emphasizing the need to optimize both the state space of theories and the evaluation criteria. By introducing "consensus objective aggregation," the authors leverage LLM-generated objective functions combined through correlation-weighted voting, resulting in a dynamic and self-correcting evaluation criterion. The framework is applied to algorithm discovery for 3-SAT problems, achieving a significant reduction in scaling from approximately \(N^{2.51}\) to \(N^{1.33}\) and a \(67\times\) speedup on large instances, showcasing its potential for broader scientific applications.
A novel meta-optimization framework that evolves evaluation criteria can dramatically accelerate scientific discovery, achieving a 67x speedup in algorithm performance.
Scientific discovery is fundamentally an optimization problem, defined by a vast "state space" of theories and experiments, and an evaluation criterion based on quality, novelty, and validity. Large language models (LLMs) have enabled automated exploration of this space, but we argue that simultaneous modification of the evaluation criteria is equally important. Here, we propose formalizing research as meta-optimization, where the optimization objective itself is also being optimized. Our key contribution is "consensus objective aggregation," where LLM-generated objective functions are combined via correlation-weighted voting, yielding a stable, self-correcting evaluation criterion that evolves as understanding deepens. We apply this framework to algorithm discovery for 3-SAT problems based on digital MemComputing machines, reducing the baseline scaling with problem size $N$ from $\sim N^{2.51}$ to $\sim N^{1.33}$ and delivering a $\sim 67\times$ speedup on the largest instances tested. As a problem-agnostic framework, we hope this approach will considerably aid scientific discovery.
