The DOI matches its DataCite record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An important Bottleneck in LLM Optimizers: Principle-Level Local Optima
Abstract
Feedback-driven LLM optimizers are increasingly used for evolutionary search, Bayesian optimization, heuristic design, and scientific discovery. Yet rapid initial gains often give way to prolonged plateaus despite substantial remaining evaluation budgets. We investigate \emph{principle-level search collapse}, where an optimizer's search becomes confined to a narrow set of design principles, even though it may continue to generate distinct candidates and achieve small improvements. We assemble a diagnostic benchmark spanning molecular optimization, network sentinel-node selection, and GPU-kernel optimization, and introduce a decision-tree protocol combining principle narrowing, prolonged performance plateaus, and gaps to attainable reference solutions. Across 161 assessable runs on the three problem domains, 78.3\% receive support for collapse, including 55.3\% with strong support. Candidate-level variation can nevertheless conceal restricted search at the principle level. We then test \emph{diversity injection}, a common response to search stagnation, such as higher t, multiple LLMs, and web search, and show that it provides limited and inconsistent benefits: among 65 molecular runs, still 73.8\% and 53.8\% receive support and strong support respectively. We finally test reference-principle interventions and find that they improve some runs, but their benefits vary across models and tasks: access to a better principle does not guarantee its effective use. Our benchmark and diagnostic protocol provide a basis for evaluating future optimizers on principle-level collapse. Our findings highlight the need for online collapse detection and better mechanisms for generating and maintaining alternative principles during optimization.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Evolution through Large Models
Lehman, J., Gordon, J., Jain, S., Ndousse, K., Yeh, C., & Stanley, K. O. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.08896 · Cited by 74
AlphaEvolve: A coding agent for scientific and algorithmic discovery
Novikov, A., Vũ, N., Eisenberger, M., Dupont, E., Huang, P.-S., Wagner, A. Z., Shirobokov, S., Kozlovskii, B., Ruiz, F. J. R., Mehrabian, A., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.13131 · Cited by 15
Cited by
Still being checked.
Metadata
- Authors
- Ran, N., Jia, T., Mu, Z., Wang, Y., Brulin, S., Olhofer, M., Alvarez, M. A., Liu, Y., & Allmendinger, R.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- arXiv
- 2610.24291
- References
- 2
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An important Bottleneck in LLM Optimizers: Principle-Level Local Optima. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2610.24291
- The paper
- Ran, N., Jia, T., Mu, Z., Wang, Y., Brulin, S., Olhofer, M., Alvarez, M. A., Liu, Y., & Allmendinger, R. (2026). An important Bottleneck in LLM Optimizers: Principle-Level Local Optima. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2610.24291