We show that verifier-free evolution is bottlenecked by both diversity and efficiency: without external correction, repeated evolution accelerates collapse toward narrow modes, while the uniform use of a high-cost model wastes compute and quickly becomes economically impractical. We introduce Squeeze Evolve, a unified multi-model orchestration framework for verifier-free evolutionary inference. Our approach is guided by a simple principle: allocate model capability where it has the highest marginal utility. Stronger models are reserved for high-impact stages, while cheaper models handle the other stages at much lower costs. This principle addresses diversity and cost-efficiency jointly while remaining lightweight. Squeeze Evolve naturally supports open-source, closed-source, and mixed-model deployments. Across AIME 2025, HMMT 2025, LiveCodeBench V6, GPQA-Diamond, ARC-AGI-V2, and multimodal vision benchmarks, such as MMMU-Pro and BabyVision, Squeeze Evolve consistently improves the cost-capability frontier over single-model evolution and achieves new state-of-the-art results on several tasks. Empirically, Squeeze Evolve reduces API cost by up to ∼3× and increases fixed-budget serving throughput by up to ∼10×. Moreover, on discovery tasks, Squeeze Evolve is the first verifier-free evolutionary method to match, and in some cases exceed, the performance of verifier-based evolutionary methods.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Squeeze Evolve shifts the cost–capability frontier left by combining verifier-free evolution with multi-model orchestration. Left: Conceptual scaling curves. Right: Key results across ARC-AGI-V2, MMMU-Pro, and BabyVision.
Method
k
∣P∣
select
recombination
Fitness f
Model
Majority Voting
1
N
Answer clustering
Identity
Consensus frequency
Single
Self-Refinement
T
1
Self-critique
Conditioned rewrite
Natural language critique
Single
RSA
T
N
K -subset
LLM aggregation
Implicit
Single
AlphaEvolve
T
Variable
Fitness-guided
LLM aggregation
External h
Multi-model
Squeeze Evolve
T
Variable
Fitness-guided
Mix of recombination
Probabilistic fitness
Multi-model
Table 1: Instantiation of the unified evolutionary framework for test-time scaling methods.
Figure 2: Single-model open-loop evolution collapses diversity and shrinks the population’s pass@ K ceiling, while multi-model routing preserves both. GPQA-Diamond results across RSA loops in two comparison settings. In both settings, the single-model baselines lose diversity after the early loops and show a corresponding decline in pass@ K , whereas Squeeze Evolve remains higher and flatter on both metrics. Shaded bands show variation across seeds.
Model pair
Data
S → W
W → S
Δ
GPT-OSS-120B / GPT-OSS-20B
HMMT’25
0.89
0.85
+4
Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507 / Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
AIME’25
0.88
0.65
+23
Table 2: Ancestor function dominates final accuracy. Mean final loop (9) accuracy across 4 seeds. Strong-init → weak-agg outperforms weak-init → strong-agg, indicating initialization quality dominates aggregation quality.
Figure 3: Aggregation success is seed-dependent, and group confidence predicts it. (a) With zero correct seeds, neither model recovers a correct answer; with all seeds correct, both achieve near-perfect accuracy. Full results across all seed counts (0–4) in Appendix Figure . (b) Mean group confidence (GC) across RSA loops 1–9 on AIME 2025, split by whether the subset contains ≥ 1 correct trajectory. In both self-model and cross-model settings, correct-containing subsets maintain consistently higher GC ( Δ≥+3.0 ). Full results in Appendix Figures and .
Figure 4: Squeeze Evolve overview. The expensive Model 2 generates the initial population; subsequent loops recombine groups using Model 1 and 2 based on group confidence
Setting
Fitness f
Selectf
Recombf (routing rule)
Update
Math / Coding / Vision
GC (Eq. 4 )
Uniform
Percentile on GC
Replace
ARC-AGI-V2 (§ 6.3 )
Diversity D (Eq. 5 )
Uniform
Threshold on D + lite agg
Replace
Circle Packing (§ 6.4 )
GC (Eq. 4 )
Fitness-weighted ( ζ=0.5 )
Percentile on GC
Accumulate
Table 3: Operator instantiations of Squeeze Evolve across evaluation settings.
Figure 5: Accuracy vs. cumulative cost for homogeneous model pairs. Each point corresponds to one RSA loop (0–9). Squeeze Evolve (green) tracks the RSA accuracy curve while staying significantly further left, achieving comparable quality at 1.4–2.0 × lower cost.
Figure 6: Accuracy vs. cumulative cost for heterogeneous model pairs. Squeeze Evolve (green) matches the expensive curve at 1.4–1.9 × lower cost, demonstrating that confidence-based routing generalizes across model families and access types.
Figure 7: Accuracy vs. cumulative cost on MMMU-Pro for homogeneous and heterogeneous vision pairs. Left: Kimi-2.5 Instant (Model 1) / Thinking (Model 2). Right: Qwen3.5-35B (Model 1, text-only) → Kimi-2.5 Thinking (Model 2). Savings are measured at matched accuracy. The heterogeneous pair achieves 2.7 × savings despite Model 1 never seeing any images.
Strategy
Model 1
Model 2
Acc.
$/Task
Savings
Code-execution methods
Imbue †
—
Gemini 3.1 Pro
95.1
$8.71
—
Confluence Lab †
—
—
97.9
$11.77
—
Full pipeline ( T=10 )
RSA
—
Gemini 3.1 Pro
93.3
$28.85
1.0 ×
Squeeze Evolve
—
Gemini 3.1 Pro
97.5
$7.74
3.7 ×
Table 4: ARC-AGI-V2 public evaluation results. N=4 , K=2 . † Uses code execution and program synthesis. Extended results in Table (Appendix).
Method
Model
Score ( ↑ )
ShinkaEvolve ( Lange et al., 2025 )
Ensemble (see caption)
2.635982
Squeeze Evolve
GPT-OSS-120B + 20B
2.635896
AlphaEvolve ( Novikov et al., 2025 )
Gemini-2.0 Pro + Flash
2.635862
OpenEvolve ( Sharma, 2025 )
Gemini-2.0 Flash + Claude 3.7 Sonnet
2.634292
Table 5: Comparison of methods on Circle Packing ( n=26 , ↑ ). ShinkaEvolve uses an ensemble of Claude Sonnet-4, GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1-mini, GPT-4.1-nano, and o4-mini.
Figure 8: Routing overhead is minimal. Routing adds 1.9–6.8% to end-to-end latency for the Qwen models and 2.8–12.4% for GPT-OSS-120B, with the higher relative overhead on GPQA reflecting its short absolute generation time (106s). Full results in Table (Appendix).
Figure 9: Fixed-budget throughput speedup over RSA. Under the same total GPU budget, the Qwen pair achieves 4–10 × speedup and the GPT-OSS pair 1.4–3.4 × . Full results in Table (Appendix).
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Benchmark
Size
Answer Format
Metric
AIME 2025
30
Integer (000–999)
Accuracy
HMMT Feb. 2025
30
Short answer
Accuracy
GPQA-Diamond
198
4-way MC
Accuracy
LiveCodeBench V6
175
Code
Pass@1
MMMU-Pro
1,730
Up to 10-way MC
Accuracy
BabyVision
388
Short answer
Accuracy
Appendix
Table 6: Summary of evaluation benchmarks.
Model
Effort
Temp.
Top-K
Top-P
Min-P
Gen. Len.
Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
—
0.7
20
0.8
0
8K
Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
—
0.7
20
0.8
0
8K
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507
—
0.7
20
0.8
0
16K
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507
—
0.6
20
0.95
0
32K
Qwen3-30B-A3B-Thinking-2507
—
0.6
20
0.95
0
32K
Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507
—
0.6
20
0.95
0
32K
Appendix
Table 7: Generation hyperparameters for each model.
Training-free self-improvement lets an agent use feedback to revise the response it is about to return and to update the harness state that shapes how it handles later tasks. On open-ended tasks that feedback rarely comes from reference answers or executable tests, so the agent has to rely on a model-based verifier. When the verifier is wrong, the current response can get worse, and misleading experience can persist across the task stream. A verifier that never changes also grows stale as the agent's responses improve and task demands shift. We introduce Unified Co-Evolution (UCoE), a training-free method that evolves an executable verifier program together with the agent's harness state while all model parameters stay fixed. UCoE synthesizes candidate verifier programs and tests them on response contrasts, pairs of responses that differ in one declared property and have a known preferred side. It selects the candidate whose discrimination on its weakest contrast family is highest, a quantity we call driving capacity. The selected verifier diagnoses one weakness in each draft, guides a single repair, decides which response is served, and determines whether the accepted repair may enter the harness state. As tasks complete, their diagnostics seed new candidate verifiers, which must beat the current verifier on the same contrasts before adoption. Across six open-ended benchmarks, UCoE averages 59.00% preference against matched direct generation with Qwen3-8B and 57.19% with Qwen3.8-27B, margins of 9.00 and 7.19 percentage points. On three verifiable benchmarks, the same method raises the mean from 36.06% for direct generation to 38.48%. Code is available at https://github.com/tianyi0216/Unified-Co-Evolution.
Tianyi Xu, Yaolun Zhang, Yiran Wu +6
Oregon State University · AG2 AI · Pennsylvania State University +1
LLM-driven evolutionary search is a promising paradigm for scientific discovery, but existing methods remain costly and slow, often applying expensive reasoning uniformly while underusing evidence from failed, redundant, and saturated trials. We introduce Speculative Evolution (SpecEvo), a multi-LLM framework that coordinates lightweight and frontier models through continual consolidation of search evidence. Lightweight models power both parallel Speculators, which generate and refine candidate programs, and an Advisor, which distills accumulated successes, failures, and saturated directions into persistent guidance for subsequent exploration. At sparse checkpoints, a frontier-model Navigator inspects the evolving population and intervenes through synthesis, surgical refinement, or reframing according to search stagnation. This speculate-then-consolidate workflow delegates routine exploration and evidence consolidation to inexpensive models while reserving frontier reasoning for strategic interventions whose benefits extend across many subsequent low-cost evaluations. Across 176 tasks spanning four scientific and algorithmic discovery domains, SpecEvo matches or outperforms frontier-model baselines while reducing API cost by up to 80%, achieves up to 1.5x greater evaluation efficiency than cost-efficient baselines on equation discovery, and improves over the strongest CO-Bench baseline by 3.8%. These results support trajectory-conditioned model coordination as an effective approach to cost-efficient scientific discovery.
Ha Minh Hieu, Tongyao Zhu, Do Xuan Long +1
Hanoi University of Science and Technology · National University of Singapore
Agent evolvers automate the design of the prompts, skills and workflows around language model agents, yet the optimization process they follow is still designed by hand: a fixed search loop decides how candidates are evaluated, which are kept and when the search stops. We propose FREEEVOLVE, which automates this process as well. An environment specifies the goal, target agent, evaluator, data and resource limits; within these limits, the evolver itself decides what to test, how much evidence to collect, which candidates to pursue and when to stop. These decisions follow an editable evolution skill, which we improve through meta-evolution by scoring each candidate skill on the fresh target agent it produces. The optimization process thus becomes a capability learned from experience rather than a loop engineered in advance. On tau3-bench, ARC-AGI-2, ARC-AGI-3 and Terminal-Bench 2.1, FREEEVOLVE controls the evolution campaign by itself, yet improves the primary held-out metric by 13.6 points on average and matches or exceeds hand-designed evolvers. The learned process keeps improving with experience: meta-evolved skills add 6.9 points over the seed skill on fresh target agents, demonstrating transferability across environments.