Greedy Is a Strong Default: Agents as Iterative Optimizers
Yitao Li

TL;DR
Replacing random proposals with an LLM agent in classical optimization still allows greedy hill climbing to be highly effective, often outperforming more complex methods across diverse tasks.
Contribution
Demonstrates that LLM-guided proposals enable simple greedy optimization to match or surpass traditional algorithms in various search problems.
Findings
LLM-based proposals outperform random search in hyperparameter tuning.
Greedy hill climbing with early stopping is a strong default optimizer.
Complex strategies like simulated annealing offer no significant benefit over greedy methods.
Abstract
Classical optimization algorithms--hill climbing, simulated annealing, population-based methods--generate candidate solutions via random perturbations. We replace the random proposal generator with an LLM agent that reasons about evaluation diagnostics to propose informed candidates, and ask: does the classical optimization machinery still help when the proposer is no longer random? We evaluate on four tasks spanning discrete, mixed, and continuous search spaces (all replicated across 3 independent runs): rule-based classification on Breast Cancer (test accuracy 86.0% to 96.5%), mixed hyperparameter optimization for MobileNetV3-Small on STL-10 (84.5% to 85.8%, zero catastrophic failures vs. 60% for random search), LoRA fine-tuning of Qwen2.5-0.5B on SST-2 (89.5% to 92.7%, matching Optuna TPE with 2x efficiency), and XGBoost on Adult Census (AUC 0.9297 to 0.9317, tying CMA-ES with 3x…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
