When Is an LLM Worth It for Hyperparameter Optimization? A Budget-Matched Study on Tabular Data Finds the Warm-Start Is a Default Configuration, Not the Model

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have been proposed as hyperparameter-optimization (HPO) advisors that "warm-start" search from prior knowledge, proposing strong configurations in very few evaluations. We test that claim under a budget-matched, multi-seed protocol on eight PMLB tabular benchmarks, comparing an LLM advisor (LLM-OptFlow) against four classical baselines (random search, Optuna-TPE, Gaussian-process Bayesian optimization, and successive halving) over one shared search space, with paired tests and bootstrap 95% CIs across 8 x 5 = 40 (task, seed) units. The finding is cautionary. The advisor's strong first point is not an LLM output at all: like prior LLM-HPO systems the loop is seeded with a fixed default configuration, evaluated before any model call, which alone reaches 88.7% mean best-CV, identical to within 0.01 pp across all seven advisor models tested. The LLM's own proposals add only +0.40 pp of cross-validation accuracy over that seed and nothing on held-out test (LLM-Default = -0.01 pp, p = 0.92). When the same seed is granted to classical search, the apparent lead collapses: against seeded random search it leads by +0.20 pp at 2 evaluations, is tied by 5, and is behind by 12 (-0.37 pp). Without the seed, classical search ties the advisor by 12 evaluations and beats it by 40 (+0.6 to +0.8 pp, p <= 1e-4). Two LLM-specific behaviors survive: a single-task exploration failure (vehicle), and a rule-based confidence filter that removes ~33% of wasted compute without changing accuracy. The recommendation is deflationary: on tabular HPO, seed classical search with a sensible default; an LLM advisor adds no measurable generalization benefit and is overtaken within a handful of evaluations. We release the harness and a script that reproduces every statistic.