Reactive Optimizers

Conventional neural-network training typically follows a predefined optimization recipe, motivating a LLM agent that monitors training dynamics and adjusts optimizer settings as training progresses, but a fixed agent policy does not accumulate experience across runs. We introduce RSI-Opt, a plug-and-play Recursive Self-Improvement Optimizer Agents which evolves the knowledge that guides this process: a prompt, a playbook of procedures, a library of tested optimizer code, and a decision cadence. A meta-agent rewrites this policy using evidence from earlier runs, and an archive retains evaluated policies for further evolution. Across 5 generations on three training tasks, the meta-agents develop reusable procedures and code and conduct their own CPU proxy experiments. RSI-Opt substantially improves optimizer-agent performance, with representative raw-space summary $z$-scores increasing from $+10.48$ to $+14.33$ on the evolution suite with Opus 5.5 and from $-0.36$ to $+3.11$ on held-out tasks with GPT-5.5 through cross-model policy transfer. On the Burgers PDE, it reduces mean relative $L_2$ error by approximately 2.7-fold with Opus 5.5 and 8.8-fold with GPT-6.1 over the fixed-prompt agent baseline, although PDE transfer varies across LLMs and tasks. Controlled comparisons show that the evolved policy combines reusable optimization knowledge with adaptation to each task: initial decisions capture most observed gains on seen tasks, while continued adaptation improves outcomes on unseen tasks. These findings demonstrate how procedures and executable tools accumulated across training runs can improve optimizer-agent performance and support transfer to scientific machine learning.

A plethora of new adaptive optimizers are designed to efficiently estimate and use minibatch gradient statistics to shape parameter updates, but they are typically benchmarked at a single batch size. Hyperparameter scaling rules promise to preserve performance as batch size and gradient noise change, suggesting that the best optimizer at one batch size should remain the best at another. We challenge this approach to developing and evaluating optimizers by showing: (1) no principled scaling rule for Muon works consistently across training settings, and (2) the best optimizer for language model pretraining changes with batch size even after extensive hyperparameter tuning. To understand these failures, we analyze a noisy quadratic model and show that the batch-size scaling rule that preserves performance is direction-dependent, shifting from square-root to linear as a direction's curvature-to-noise ratio rises. We further prove that gradient noise drives a bias-variance tradeoff in preconditioning that can reverse optimizer rankings across batch sizes, even under optimal learning rate and momentum tuning. Consistent with this, when we increase the batch size $16\times$ partway through language model pretraining, keeping small-batch updates in only the sharpest $0.001\%$ of directions removes up to $59.5\%$ of the resulting loss gap over the next $8\%$ of training, while a random subspace of the same size barely helps. Taken together, our results show that principled optimizer design must account for batch size and empirical benchmarking should be performed across batch sizes.

Large language models (LLMs) can translate natural-language optimization problems into solver programs, but reliably producing correct formulations and implementations remains challenging. Existing approaches improve optimization modeling through agentic workflows or task-specific post-training. This raises a practical question: can a lightweight harness using a single model role achieve competitive performance without additional training? We introduce OPTICYCLE and OPTISTATE, two lightweight inference harnesses for optimization modeling, and evaluate them on nine benchmarks comprising 2,634 problems using 11 Qwen variants spanning 0.6B-27B parameters. Our results show that execution-guided revision consistently improves macro accuracy over direct generation for all evaluated models, with gains of up to 49.46 percentage points. Despite their simplicity, both harnesses outperform six adapted agentic workflows in same-model comparisons and four evaluated post-trained optimization models at comparable model sizes, without additional training. Explicit formulation state provides further but model-dependent improvements, suggesting that additional structure is not universally beneficial.