- The problem
- Scientists may know what kind of molecule or peptide they want, but specialized generators do not understand ordinary-language goals. Language models can reason about such goals, yet their numerical ratings of scientific candidates may be unreliable, and a generator may almost never produce designs that meet a difficult goal at the outset.
- The idea
- The paper has a language model act as a coach for a specialist generator. It first sets an easier, scientifically relevant goal the generator can make progress on, compares candidates using simple better-or-worse judgments (and can abstain when uncertain), and uses those judgments to train the generator; as the generator improves, the coach makes the goal more demanding. It is like teaching a difficult skill through achievable steps rather than demanding expert performance immediately.
- What it got
- In tests on therapeutic peptides and small-molecule design, this approach beat reward-based methods on separate evaluation measures without using their task-specific scoring functions. For cell-penetrating peptides, the held-out evaluator score increased from 8.81% before adaptation to 69.06% with LFD.