Authors: Shu Liu, Shubham Agarwal, Monishwaran Maheswaran, Mert Cemri, Zhifei Li, Qiuyang Mang, Ashwin Naren, Ethan Boneh, Audrey Cheng, Melissa Z. Pan, Alexander Du, Kurt Keutzer, Alvin Cheung, Alexandros G. Dimakis, Koushik Sen, Matei Zaharia, Ion Stoica
Organizations: UC Berkeley · Stanford University · Bespoke Labs
Recent work such as AlphaEvolve has shown that combining LLM-driven optimization with evolutionary search can effectively improve programs, prompts, and algorithms across domains. In this paradigm, previously evaluated solutions are reused to guide the model toward new candidate solutions. Crucially, the effectiveness of this evolution process depends on the search strategy: how prior solutions are selected and varied to generate new candidates. However, most existing methods rely on fixed search strategies with predefined knobs (e.g., explore-exploit ratios) that remain static throughout execution. While effective in some settings, these approaches often fail to adapt across tasks, or even within the same task as the search space changes over time. We introduce EvoX, an adaptive evolution method that optimizes its own evolution process. EvoX jointly evolves candidate solutions and the search strategies used to generate them, continuously updating how prior solutions are selected and varied based on progress. This enables the system to dynamically shift between different search strategies during the optimization process. Across nearly 200 real-world optimization tasks, EvoX outperforms existing AI-driven evolutionary methods including AlphaEvolve, OpenEvolve, GEPA, and ShinkaEvolve on the majority of tasks.
Figures & tables
Task
Human Best
AlphaEvolve
EvoX
Mathematics
Circle-Packing ( ↑ )
2.634
2.635
2.636
MinMaxMinDist ( ↓ )
4.16584
4.16579
4.16578
Task
Human Best
AI Best
EvoX
Systems Optimization
Cloud Transfer ( ↓ )
626.24
645.72
623.69
Table 1: EvoX across optimization tasks. We compare EvoX against strong human-designed methods and prior AI discovery systems, including AlphaEvolve, GEPA, ShinkaEvolve, and OpenEvolve, across mathematical optimization, systems performance optimization (e.g., GPU-to-model placement), and algorithm engineering tasks (e.g., Frontier-CS). For Frontier-CS, we report median scores over 172 competitive programming problems. Arrows indicate whether higher ( ↑ ) or lower ( ↓ ) scores are better. All open AI frameworks are evaluated under a fixed budget of 100 iterations, and the best result among them is reported as “AI Best.” AlphaEvolve results are taken directly from its original publication.
Figure 1: Evolving the search strategy. ( 1 ) System architecture. EvoX has two coupled loops: an inner loop that evolves solutions, and an outer loop that evolves the search strategy that governs generation. ( 1 ) Effect of search evolution. A strategy with fixed exploration-exploitation ratio (MAP-Elites, red) stagnates, while an evolving search strategy (blue) produces discrete performance breakthroughs.
Figure 2: Evolving search strategy on the signal processing task. Starting from a uniform random sampling strategy, EvoX detects stagnation and adaptively switches to greedy search, stratified multi-objective sampling, UCB-guided structural variation, and finally local refinement. These strategy changes enable discovery of improved filtering programs and yield major gains at iterations ∼ 48 (+0.119), ∼ 70 (+0.056), and ∼ 96 (+0.022), achieving 34.1% higher final score than the static baseline.
GPT-5
Gemini-3.0-Pro
Task
Stat
Human
AlphaEvolve
OpenEvolve
GEPA
Shinka
EvoX
OpenEvolve
GEPA
Shinka
EvoX
Circle Packing ( ↑ )
Mean
–
–
2.5308
2.6129
2.4642
2.6324
2.5414
2.6198
2.6216
2.6328
Best
2.6340
2.6350
2.5414
2.6359
2.5161
2.6359
2.5414
2.6208
2.6358
2.6359
Circle Packing Rect ( ↑ )
Mean
–
–
2.2673
2.3265
2.3347
2.3525
2.3651
2.2160
2.3658
2.3658
Best
2.3640
2.3658
2.2756
2.3537
2.3577
2.3600
2.3658
2.2507
2.3658
2.3658
heilbronn_convex ( ↑ )
Mean
–
–
0.0230
0.0259
0.0228
0.0263
0.0279
0.0228
0.0279
0.0287
Table 2: Main results for math optimization problems. We report mean and best over three runs. “ ↑ ” / “ ↓ ” indicate maximization / minimization. All open methods use 100 iterations under the same backbone model. Bold denotes the best LLM-based open framework result per model. Green cells indicate matches or improvements over human SOTA or closed-source AlphaEvolve results. In Circle Packing Rect, EvoX achieves 2.36583237, exceeding AlphaEvolve’s 2.36583213, although both appear equal when rounded.
GPT-5
Gemini-3.0-Pro
Task
Stat
Human
OpenEvolve
GEPA
Shinka
EvoX
OpenEvolve
GEPA
Shinka
EvoX
EPLB ( ↑ )
Mean
–
0.1300
0.1338
0.1185
0.1358
0.1272
0.1268
0.1206
0.1392
Best
0.1265
0.1272
0.1445
0.1272
0.1453
0.1272
0.1272
0.1272
0.1453
PRISM ( ↑ )
Mean
–
25.15
26.19
26.26
27.67
26.24
26.16
26.25
26.26
Best
21.89
26.23
26.23
26.26
30.52
26.24
26.19
26.26
26.26
LLM-SQL ( ↑ )
Mean
–
0.7053
0.7127
0.7123
0.7231
0.7251
0.7129
0.7210
0.7278
Table 3: Main results for system problems. We report mean and best scores over three runs. “ ↑ ” denotes maximization and “ ↓ ” minimization. All methods (except human / prior AI) are run for 100 iterations using GPT-5 and Gemini-3.0-Pro. Bold denotes the best LLM-based open framework result per model. Green cells indicate matches or improvements over human SOTA results.
Figure 3: Algorithm and Research Challenges. EvoX achieves the highest average private performance with GPT-5 on 10 different ALE-Bench-Lite problems and highest median score across 172 different Frontier-CS challenges.
Figure 4: Search strategy evolution and cost-quality tradeoffs on the Heilbronn triangle task. (a) Dashed lines show fixed strategies, while solid lines show EvoX initialized from each strategy and allowed to evolve. Regardless of initialization, EvoX continues improving beyond the fixed strategy. (b) Cost-quality tradeoff under the GPT-5 model. To exceed a score of 0.031, EvoX and GEPA both require less than 1inLLMgenerationcost,comparedtoShinkaEvolve(7.6) and OpenEvolve ($15.4).
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Problem
Objective
Description
Circle Packing (Square)
maxr
Place n equal-radius circles inside the unit square without overlap; maximize the common radius subject to non-overlap and boundary constraints.
Circle Packing (Rectangle)
maxr
Pack n equal-radius circles into a rectangle with fixed aspect ratio, maximizing the radius under geometric constraints.
Heilbronn Triangle
maxmin area
Place n points in [0,1]2 to maximize the area of the smallest triangle formed by any three points.
Heilbronn Convex
maxmin area
Generalization of the Heilbronn triangle problem: maximize the minimum area of convex hulls formed by any subset of k>3 points.
Min–Max–Min Distance (2 variants)
maxdmaxdmin
Place points to maximize uniformity, measured by the ratio between minimum and maximum pairwise distances.
Third Autocorrelation Inequality
minC3
Construct witness functions that minimize the third autocorrelation constant in additive combinatorics.
Appendix
Table 4: Mathematical optimization benchmarks. Summary of optimization tasks used to evaluate EvoX, including geometric, combinatorial, and signal processing problems.
Problem
Objective
Description
EPLB (Expert Placement Load Balancing)
max throughput ratio
Place and replicate experts in MoE models across GPUs based on activation frequency, minimizing load imbalance and computational skew.
PRISM (Global Model Scheduling)
max throughput
Schedule multiple deep learning models across distributed GPUs under memory, compute, and latency SLO constraints in a multi-tenant setting.
LLM–SQL
max accuracy
Optimize LLM-driven SQL generation via prompting or post-processing; a query is correct only if it exactly matches ground-truth execution results.
Cloudcast (Multi-Region Data Transfer)
min cost
Design cost-efficient data transfer strategies across cloud regions with heterogeneous bandwidths, latencies, and egress pricing under deadline constraints.
Transaction Scheduling
max commits/sec
Schedule database transactions under contention to maximize throughput while minimizing aborts from conflicts, deadlocks, or timeouts.
Telemetry Repair
max reconstruction accuracy
Reconstruct missing or corrupted telemetry signals using partial observations, exploiting temporal and spatial correlations.
Appendix
Table 5: System performance optimization benchmarks. Benchmarks drawn from ADRS-Bench [ 7 ] , capturing realistic optimization problems from production systems.
Problem / Category
Count
Description
ALE-Bench-Lite: NP-hard optimization from AtCoder Heuristic Contests
ahc008 (Territory)
1
Control agents on a grid to place fences isolating pets; max satisfaction.
ahc011 (Sliding Puzzle)
1
Rearrange tiles so line patterns form a large connected tree; max connectivity.
ahc015 (Candy Clustering)
1
Cluster candies of the same flavor using global tilt operations; max clustering score.
ahc016 (Graph Classification)
1
Design reference graphs and classify noisy, permuted query graphs; min classification error.
ahc024 (Map Compression)
1
Compress a grid map preserving district adjacency; min map size.
Appendix
Table 6: Algorithmic and research problem benchmarks. We evaluate on 182 open-ended problems: 10 NP-hard optimization problems from ALE-Bench-Lite [ 15 ] and 172 problems from FrontierCS [ 20 ] .
Backbone
OpenEvolve
EvoX
GPT-5
41%
48%
Gemini-3-Pro
45%
51%
Appendix
Table 7: EvoX performance on ARC-AGI benchmarks. Values denote final accuracy.
GPT-5
Gemini-3.0-Pro
Task
Stat
Human
AlphaEvolve
ThetaEvolve
CodeEvolve
Random
OpenEvolve
GEPA
Shinka
EvoX
Random
OpenEvolve
GEPA
Shinka
EvoX
Circle Packing ( ↑ )
Mean
–
–
–
–
2.4905
2.5308
2.6129
2.4642
2.6324
2.5564
2.5414
2.6198
2.6216
2.6328
Best
2.6340
2.6350
2.6360
2.6360
2.5000
2.5414
2.6285
2.5078
2.6360
2.5853
2.5414
2.6208
2.6358
2.6360
Circle Packing Rect ( ↑ )
Mean
–
–
–
–
2.2105
2.2673
2.3265
2.3347
2.3525
2.3432
2.3651
2.2160
2.3658
2.3658
Best
2.3640
2.3658
–
2.3658
2.2783
2.2756
2.3537
2.3577
2.3600
2.3652
2.3658
2.2507
2.3658
2.3658
heilbronn_convex ( ↑ )
Mean
–
–
–
–
0.0185
0.0230
0.0259
0.0228
0.0263
0.0285
0.0279
0.0228
0.0279
0.0287
Appendix
Table 8: Main results for math optimization problems. We report mean and best over three runs. “ ↑ ” / “ ↓ ” indicate maximization / minimization.
GPT-5
Gemini-3.0-Pro
Task
Stat
Human
Random
OpenEvolve
GEPA
Shinka
EvoX
Random
OpenEvolve
GEPA
Shinka
EvoX
EPLB ( ↑ )
Mean
–
0.1338
0.1300
0.1338
0.1185
0.1358
0.1280
0.1272
0.1268
0.1206
0.1392
Best
0.1265
0.1445
0.1272
0.1445
0.1272
0.1453
0.1285
0.1272
0.1272
0.1272
0.1453
PRISM ( ↑ )
Mean
–
26.23
25.15
26.19
26.26
27.67
26.23
26.24
26.16
26.25
26.26
Best
21.89
26.23
26.23
26.23
26.26
30.52
26.23
26.24
26.19
26.26
26.26
LLM-SQL ( ↑ )
Mean
–
0.7201
0.7053
0.7127
0.7123
0.7231
0.7380
0.7251
0.7129
0.7210
0.7278
Appendix
Table 9: Main results for system problems. We report mean and best scores over three runs. “ ↑ ” denotes maximization and “ ↓ ” minimization.
Task
Strategy
Search Mechanism
Variation Operator
Δ
W
Signal Processing
Random sampling
Parents and inspiration programs sampled uniformly from the population
Free-form variation
+0.03
11
Greedy sampling
Parents sampled from top-performing candidates
Free-form variation
+0.01
10
Stratified + multi-objective sampling
Parents selected across objective-specific score rankings
Structural variation
+0.12
19
UCB-based selection
Usage-based parent selection with penalty for overuse
Structural variation
+0.06
16
Top-tier refinement
Parents restricted to high-score candidates
Local refinement
+0.03
14
Appendix
Table 10: Search strategy evolution on Signal Processing (Gemini, 100 iterations). Initial score 0.499 → final 0.743. Δ : improvement achieved within the phase window; W : window length. Variation operator π∈{local refinement,structural variation,free-form variation} , where free-form variation is the default.
Task
Strategy
Search Mechanism
Operator Bias
Δ
W
Circle Packing
Random sampling
Parents and contexts sampled uniformly from the population
Parents selected from elite, mid, and lower score bands
Mixed (refinement + structural)
+0.004
10
Stagnation-aware sampling
Parent selection conditioned on recent parent-child scores
Structural variation
+0.003
10
Elite refinement
Parents restricted to high-score candidates
Local refinement
0
20
Quantile-biased refinement
Parents sampled from upper quantiles of the score distribution
Local refinement
∼ 2e − 5
10
Appendix
Table 11: Search strategy evolution on Circle Packing (Gemini, 100 iterations). Initial score 0.364 → final 1.0004. Δ : improvement achieved within the phase window; W : window length. Variation operator π∈{local refinement,structural variation,free-form variation} , where free-form variation is the default.
Task
Strategy
Search Mechanism
Operator Bias
Δ
W
Heilbronn Triangle
Stratified sampling
Parents selected from top and mid score bands
Free-form variation
+0.853
26
Exploration-biased sampling
Parents sampled uniformly with occasional high-score selection
Parent selection weighted by historical sampling frequency
Free-form variation
0
10
Refinement-focused sampling
Parents sampled from high-score candidates
Local refinement
+0.021
10
Appendix
Table 12: Search strategy evolution on Heilbronn Triangle (Gemini, 100 iterations). Initial score 0.0 → final min_area≈0.0365 (SOTA 1.0); best at iteration 91. Δ : improvement achieved within the phase window; W : window length. Variation operator π∈{local refinement,structural variation,free-form variation} , where free-form variation is the default.
The paradigm of automated program generation is shifting from one-shot generation to inference-time search, where Large Language Models (LLMs) function as semantic mutation operators within evolutionary loops. While effective, these systems are currently governed by static schedules that fail to account for the non-stationary dynamics of the search process. This rigidity results in substantial computational waste, as resources are indiscriminately allocated to stagnating populations while promising frontiers remain under-exploited. We introduce AdaEvolve, a framework that reformulates LLM-driven evolution as a hierarchical adaptive optimization problem. AdaEvolve uses an "accumulated improvement signal" to unify decisions across three levels: Local Adaptation, which dynamically modulates the exploration intensity within a population of solution candidates; Global Adaptation, which routes the global resource budget via bandit-based scheduling across different solution candidate populations; and Meta-Guidance which generates novel solution tactics based on the previously generated solutions and their corresponding improvements when the progress stalls. We demonstrate that AdaEvolve consistently outperforms the open-sourced baselines across 185 different open-ended optimization problems including combinatorial, systems optimization and algorithm design problems.
Recent LLM-guided evolutionary search methods have shown that iterative program mutation can discover strong algorithms, but they typically optimize each task independently, even when related tasks share reusable structure. We study evolutionary multitask optimization (EMO) for LLM-guided program discovery and propose EMO-STA (Shared-Then-Adapt), a two-stage framework that first evolves a shared archive of executable programs across a task family and then adapts selected shared candidates to each target task. Within EMO-STA, we explore multiple adaptation strategies, including warm-starting from the shared archive, adapting the best average shared program, and adapting the shared program that performs best on each target task. Across eight task families spanning continuous optimization, geometric construction, modeling, and algorithmic optimization, EMO-STA improves over single-task evolution under matched evolutionary-iteration budgets in most settings, with STA Best-Local providing the strongest in-distribution adaptation and STA Best-Shared yielding robust transfer to unseen tasks. Iteration-allocation experiments show that devoting a substantial fraction of the family-level iteration budget to shared evolution is effective, with roughly balanced shared and aggregate adaptation budgets often yielding the best performance. ARC and time-series feature-engineering case studies further suggest that shared evolution can mitigate overfitting in low-evidence settings by favoring programs that perform well across related tasks rather than exploiting brittle task-specific artifacts.
Halil Alperen Gozeten, Xuechen Zhang, Emrullah Ildiz +3
University of Michigan - Ann Arbor · University of California San Diego
LLM-driven program evolution can discover high-quality programs, but high API cost and run-to-run variance hinder reliable progress. We propose TurboEvolve, a multi-island evolutionary framework that improves sample efficiency and stability under matched API-cost budgets. Inspired by multiple-offspring strategies in evolutionary algorithms, TurboEvolve introduces Verbalized Sampling, which elicits K diverse candidates in one LLM call while using self-assigned probabilities only as generation signals, together with an online scheduler that adapts K to expand exploration under stagnation and reduce redundant generation during steady progress. To exploit existing solution pools, TurboEvolve further introduces island-aware initialization, which clusters seed programs into mode-specific subpopulations and applies controlled cross-cluster mixing with elitist preservation to balance diversity, sharing, and refinement. We also curate a reusable cross-task solution-pool dataset to support warm-start initialization studies and matched-resource comparisons. Across mathematical discovery and GPU-kernel optimization tasks, TurboEvolve achieves stronger cost-quality trade-offs and more stable performance than controlled baselines, while reaching competitive reported scores.
Yang Yang, Zining Zhong, Jindong Li +5
Artificial Intelligence Thrust, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou), Guangzhou, China.