Angelica Chen

Xinyi Chen, Angelica Chen, Dean Foster et al. · princeton

We consider regret minimization in repeated games with a very large number of actions. Such games are inherent in the setting of AI Safety via Debate \cite{irving2018ai}, and more generally games whose actions are language-based. Existing algorithms for online game playing require per-iteration computation polynomial in the number of actions, which can be prohibitive for large games. We thus consider oracle-based algorithms, as oracles naturally model access to AI agents. With oracle access, we characterize when internal and external regret can be minimized efficiently. We give a novel efficient algorithm for simultaneous external and internal regret minimization whose regret depends logarithmically on the number of actions. We conclude with experiments in the setting of AI Safety via Debate that shows the benefit of insights from our algorithmic analysis.

Angelica Chen, Samuel D. Stanton, Frances Ding et al.

Although large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in biomolecule optimization problems, they incur heavy computational costs and struggle to satisfy precise constraints. On the other hand, specialized solvers like LaMBO-2 offer efficiency and fine-grained control but require more domain expertise. Comparing these approaches is challenging due to expensive laboratory validation and inadequate synthetic benchmarks. We address this by introducing Ehrlich functions, a synthetic test suite that captures the geometric structure of biophysical sequence optimization problems. With prompting alone, off-the-shelf LLMs struggle to optimize Ehrlich functions. In response, we propose LLOME (Language Model Optimization with Margin Expectation), a bilevel optimization routine for online black-box optimization. When combined with a novel preference learning loss, we find LLOME can not only learn to solve some Ehrlich functions, but can even perform as well as or better than LaMBO-2 on moderately difficult Ehrlich variants. However, LLMs also exhibit some likelihood-reward miscalibration and struggle without explicit rewards. Our results indicate LLMs can occasionally provide significant benefits, but specialized solvers are still competitive and incur less overhead.