arXiv preprint ·
Does reflective LLM feedback survive a wet-lab-scale label budget?
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Can reflective language-model feedback improve a biological predictor when each cycle buys only one plate of labels? We separate three possible sources of benefit: proposing model edits, choosing measurements, and revising decisions through repeated feedback. We replay $36$ ProteinGym assays, starting with $96$ labels and acquiring $96$ per round for six rounds, with a sealed test set and a shared edit schema. The pre-specified comparison of full LLM control against random edits detects no advantage in test rank correlation ($Δz=-0.008$, $95\%$ CI $[-0.034,+0.018]$); equivalence is also unestablished. Exploratory ablations nevertheless identify useful model editing. With random acquisition fixed, LLM edits improve Fisher-transformed test Spearman by $0.043$ over no edits; with acquisition fixed to upper confidence bound, they improve normalized top-variant recovery by $0.023$. LLM acquisition alone does not detectably outperform fixed adaptive rules, and repeated feedback does not detectably outperform one initial recommendation under full control. Thus, the observed gains support constrained specialist editing, while the incremental value of recursive reflection remains unestablished at this label budget.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
A Self-Exploring and Self-Evolving Paradigm for Adaptive Edge AI Development
Accessed, never disclosed: Silent access to protected health information by medical artificial intelligence agents
Toward Executable Multi-framework Front-end Code Generation with Self-Correction
Spatial Transfusion: From Structured Spatial Scene Understanding to Generation and Editing
Learning by Doing: Autonomously Compiling and Curating Agent Skills from Verified Traces
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.