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.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison between AlphaEvolve and TurboEvolve . AlphaEvolve uses single-program initialization and one descendant per iteration, whereas TurboEvolve adds island-aware initialization, Verbalized Sampling for multi-candidate generation, and adaptive K scheduling.
Method
Autocorr_ First ↓
Autocorr_ Second ↑
Uncer- tainty ↓
Circle Pack_26 ↑
Erdos_ Overlap ↓
Matmul_ SwishGN ↑
Conv3d_ Mish ↑
Conv2d_ BN ↑
Gemini-2.0-Flash/Pro
AlphaEvolve
1.505294
0.896280
0.321587
2.635863
0.380923
–
–
–
Gemini-2.5-Flash
LoongFlow
1.513806
0.910976
0.358684
2.570675
0.381078
1.852214
2.207348
1.198789
PartEvo
1.510948
0.925310
0.352101
2.377295
0.381039
1.356195
1.432049
1.031080
OpenEvolve
1.509724
0.934569
0.358149
2.630972
0.381420
1.894889
2.210669
1.301967
Table 1: Best-over-runs scores under matched API-cost budgets. Each controlled configuration is run five times. Arrows indicate optimization direction; bold and underline mark the best and second-best controlled results within each backend block. AlphaEvolve values are reported references with a different backend and are excluded from rankings.
Figure 2: Run-to-run consistency under Gemini-2.5-Flash. Bars show the mean of final per-run best scores over five runs, and error bars show standard deviation.
Figure 3: Backbone-paired efficiency at equal evaluated-program horizons: 800 programs for mathematical tasks and 100 for KernelBench tasks. (A) Endpoint score, LLM calls, and API cost. OE: OpenEvolve ; TE: TurboEvolve . Bold marks the better score or lower resource use within each pair. (B) Representative CirclePack_26 trajectories. Columns: Gemini-2.5-Flash and Gemini-3-Flash; rows: best score and generated programs versus API cost.
Table 5
Figure 4: Within-event prefix replay on CirclePack_26 ( K=7 ). Left: probability that a retained prefix contains a valid improvement. Right: best score change maxj≤mΔj relative to the parent; negative values indicate regression. Curves group events by inspiration-score quintile; lines show medians across runs and bands show IQR.
Variant
T
Candidate counts K
Erdos_Overlap ↓
CirclePack_26 ↑
Default
3
{1,3,5,7}
0.380927±0.000041
2.635114±0.001690
Wider range
3
{1,3,5,7,9}
0.380985±0.000069
2.634228±0.002474
Slower update
5
{1,3,5,7}
0.380944±0.000042
2.632477±0.002243
Table 4: Sensitivity to scheduler range and update window. Entries are mean ± standard deviation; arrows indicate the optimization direction.
Figure 5: Adaptive K ablation with Gemini-2.5-Flash. Thresholds count programs needed to reach each score.
Figure 6: Warm-start initialization on Uncertainty . TurboEvolve with different seed-pool allocations: random, kmeans, and kmeans+elite. Left: bottom 80% pool (top 20% removed). Right: full pool. Curves show best-so-far objective across runs vs. evolved programs.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: Run-to-run consistency under Gemini-3-Flash. Bars show the mean of final per-run best scores over five runs, and error bars show standard deviation.
Figure 8: Additional backbone-paired efficiency trajectories: Mathematical tasks. Each task panel shows best-so-far score and generated programs versus API cost for OpenEvolve and TurboEvolve . Columns within each panel correspond to Gemini-2.5-Flash and Gemini-3-Flash.
Figure 9: Additional backbone-paired efficiency trajectories: KernelBench tasks. Each task panel shows best-so-far score and generated programs versus API cost for OpenEvolve and TurboEvolve . Columns within each panel correspond to Gemini-2.5-Flash and Gemini-3-Flash.
Figure 10: Rank-wise quality and diversity under large K . We profile candidates within the same LLM call by their rank in the returned VS order. We report validity rate, valid-only score improvement Δ , and a diversity proxy (archive cell-distance to the primary parent), aggregated at the run level with median and IQR. For panels that compare rank groups, we summarize ranks into head (1–2), mid (3–5), and tail (6–7) using the same K=7 events.
Figure 11: Distance– K interaction under adaptive scheduling. Heatmaps report (A) P(improve) and (B) E[Δbest] over pre-generation distance deciles and K∈{1,3,5,7} . Events are first aggregated within each run on the (distance,K) grid and then summarized across runs; cell opacity reflects the number of events in each bin.
Figure 12: QD footprint over evaluation budget. We report archive coverage (number of occupied cells) and cell quality (mean best score per occupied cell) as functions of evaluation budget for TurboEvolve . Each run is interpolated onto a shared budget grid; lines show the median across runs and bands indicate IQR.
Method
Input: 3,626,247
Output: 393,339
Total: 4,019,586
TurboEvolve
0.329957±0.002858
0.329957±0.002858
0.329957±0.002858
OpenEvolve
0.348475±0.012751
0.348368±0.012869
0.348475±0.012751
Independent- K
0.353319±0.002742
0.350119±0.006296
0.353319±0.002742
PartEvo
0.350246±0.024267
0.385045±0.038397
0.361850±0.022181
LoongFlow
0.374063±0.007187
0.374063±0.007187
0.374063±0.007187
Appendix
Table 5: Matched-token controls on Uncertainty with Gemini-3-Flash. Entries are mean ± standard deviation; lower objective values are better. Each column applies a separate token budget.
Matched resource
TurboEvolve
Independent- K
Input tokens
800
169.3±15.9
Output tokens
800
204.0±22.9
Total tokens
800
173.3±14.3
Appendix
Table 6: Evaluated-program counts under the token budgets of Table I.1 .
Method
Objective
Evaluated programs
Erdos_Overlap ( ↓ )
TurboEvolve
0.380951390±0.000001475
798.5±0.5
OpenEvolve
0.383684278±0.002500354
241.0±32.9
LoongFlow
0.382213364±0.001534239
109.0±13.1
PartEvo
0.381014212±0.000042971
196.3±4.5
Conv2d_BN ( ↑ )
Appendix
Table 7: Local DeepSeek-V4-Flash results on four H200 GPUs. Entries are mean ± standard deviation. Bold marks the strongest mean objective within each task; these are descriptive comparisons, not significance tests.
Method
Active GPU-h
Reserved GPU-h
Erdos_Overlap
TurboEvolve
8.225±0.164
33.314±0.485
OpenEvolve
5.899±0.599
16.199±3.813
LoongFlow
6.179±0.404
23.395±12.828
PartEvo
10.300±0.963
17.852±0.096
Conv2d_BN
Appendix
Table 8: Local-inference GPU resource measurements (mean ± standard deviation). Active and reserved GPU hours are reported separately. Total resource use and resource use per evaluated program answer different questions; the methods evaluate different numbers of programs.
Matched resource
TurboEvolve
OpenEvolve
LoongFlow
PartEvo
Input tokens
0.338952±0.013404
0.361739±0.017780
0.374063±0.007187
0.367575±0.018286
Output tokens
0.338211±0.013874
0.360487±0.019143
0.374063±0.007187
0.361777±0.022264
Cached-input usage
0.345516±0.024338
0.361187±0.018641
0.379927±0.007187
0.368904±0.015781
API cost
0.338211±0.013874
0.360849±0.018612
0.374063±0.007187
0.361777±0.022264
Evaluator compute
0.338662±0.013573
0.360504±0.019125
0.372746±0.009043
0.367575±0.018286
Active wall time
0.338662±0.013573
0.360504±0.019125
0.374063±0.007187
0.361777±0.022264
Appendix
Table 9: Representative resource-matched quality on Uncertainty with Gemini-3-Flash. Entries are mean ± standard deviation; lower is better. Each row independently matches one resource. This table is distinct from the token-budget experiment in Table I.1 .
Measure
TurboEvolve
OpenEvolve
LoongFlow
PartEvo
API cost ($)
1.9598±0.3079
1.9501±0.0050
1.8559±0.1055
1.9555±0.0038
Evaluated programs
797.4±2.1
107.0±15.9
72.6±30.3
233.6±18.0
Evaluator compute (h)
0.63±0.16
0.18±0.08
1.03±0.69
0.20±0.05
Active wall time (h)
1.72±0.71
0.90±0.35
3.72±0.83
1.61±0.31
Evaluator s/program
2.87±0.71
6.01±2.09
49.33±21.03
3.07±0.62
Active wall s/program
7.78±3.21
29.93±9.02
211.65±80.56
24.62±3.53
Appendix
Table 10: Evaluator and active-wall-time breakdown on CirclePack_26 with Gemini-3-Flash (mean ± standard deviation). Per-program measurements are reported separately from aggregate totals.
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.
LLM-based program evolution relies on evaluation feedback to guide the iterative search for high-performing programs. However, evaluation is often computationally expensive, making it essential to allocate limited resources to candidates that can most effectively advance the search. Existing LLM-based methods typically rely on fixed allocation strategies throughout the search, potentially wasting resources on low-value candidates while overlooking promising ones. We propose EvoAlloc, a self-evolving resource-allocation agent that learns from search experience to revise its strategy for allocating computational resources across candidates. EvoAlloc periodically consolidates prior search and allocation outcomes into reusable experience, which informs subsequent strategy revisions. It further uses a counterfactual exploration mechanism to occasionally evaluate candidates denied resources by the allocator, revealing their outcomes to enrich its experience for future strategy updates. Across coding and agent-harness optimization benchmarks, EvoAlloc requires 59-82% fewer full evaluations and 61-89% fewer total LLM tokens to reach baseline-level performance. Moreover, under the same full-evaluation budget, EvoAlloc achieves 8.7-12.0% higher final performance.
Yanning Dai, Yuhui Wang, Nanbo Li +2
Center of Excellence for Generative AI, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Thuwal, Saudi Arabia. · Sakana AI, Tokyo, Japan.
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