ExpEvolve: Structuring and Reusing Experience for Open-Ended Discovery
Authors: Yongqiang Chen, Chenxi Liu, Deyu Zou, Zhenhao Chen, Tongliang Liu, Bo Han, Kun Zhang
Organizations: MBZUAI · Carnegie Mellon University · TMLR Group, Hong Kong Baptist University · The Chinese University of Hong Kong · SAIC Centre, The University of Sydney
Evolutionary coding agents such as AlphaEvolve are one of the notable successes in using Large Language Models (LLMs) to build AI Scientists. These agents tackle open-ended scientific problems by iteratively improving and evolving programs, leveraging the prior knowledge and reasoning capabilities of LLMs. Despite their success, mutations over programs are mostly low-level upon surface heuristics, without a persistent unit of control. In contrast, science compounds through ideas. In this work, we propose ExpEvolve, which injects idea-level extraction and control into evolution: it discovers and leverages the high-level factors from programs that explain scoring differences among different programs. We characterize theoretical conditions on when discovery with idea factors improves sample efficiency. We also build a practical framework to show that the extracted high-level idea factors are helpful for guiding exploitation from experience and exploration when discovery comes to a plateau. Across 11 open-ended mathematical tasks, ExpEvolve significantly improves the final performance and sample efficiency up to 5.0x. The improvements also transfer to 4 other LLMs and to 6 machine learning tasks from MLS-Bench. Analysis shows that ExpEvolve can discover idea-level factors to provide better exploration and exploitation for evolutionary discovery.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison between experience reuse at program-level and idea-level. All programs solve the same grid task. Left: Experience reuse at program-level is prone to low-level edits. Program-level evolution derives new programs from a high-scoring parent, such as changing the heuristic weight or bounding the search loop. Both edited programs score lower. Right: Experience reuse at idea-level compares structurally different programs through a shared procedure-level factor, lp = refine_lp(lp) . Programs that contain the factor score higher than the program that omits it. This contrast singles out the factor, which is then inserted into new programs of different structures.
Figure 2: Evolutionary discovery as a POMDP. (A) In each iteration, an evolutionary coding agent builds the proposal context from its memory, e.g., parent and inspiration programs or summarized insights, and generates candidate programs with an LLM G . The evaluator scores every program, whose outcome depends on the hidden mechanism θsci , and the scored programs enter the archive and update the memory. (B) The corresponding temporal graphical model. The memory mt guides the next program pt , and the score yt depends on both pt and the static but unknown mechanism θsci , which in turn updates mt+1 .
Figure 3: Illustration of idea factor discovery.
Figure 4: Illustration of two-level exploration-exploitation with discovered idea factors.
Figure 5: Illustration of idea-guided exploration at plateaus.
20 generations × 10 programs
10 generations × 20 programs
ShinkaEvolve
Task
ExpEvolve
SCS
ExpEvolve
SCS
Mean
Best
Mean
Best
Mean
Best
Mean
Best
Mean
Best
Hadamard ↑
0.9211 ± 0.000
0.9211
0.6641 ± 0.169
0.8596
0.9259 ± 0.008
0.9357
0.8349 ± 0.101
0.9211
0.6467 ± 0.139
0.8066
Pack ↑
2.63542 ± 0.001
2.63598
2.61697 ± 0.028
2.63572
2.63499 ± 0.002
2.63598
2.62305 ± 0.011
2.63104
2.58201 ± 0.037
2.61408
Linprog ↑
2.63542 ± 0.001
2.63598
2.63542 ± 0.001
2.63598
2.63542 ± 0.001
2.63598
2.55161 ± 0.006
2.55608
2.51434 ± 0.026
2.54142
SumDiff ↑
1.11609 ± 0.006
1.11937
1.11087 ± 0.001
1.11143
1.12224 ± 0.001
1.12281
1.11608 ± 0.005
1.12006
1.10954 ± 0.000
1.10954
Table 1: Final performance at the budget of 200 evaluated programs. Mean reports the seed mean ± seed standard deviation over 3 seeds, and Best reports the best seed.
Figure 6: Best-so-far scores along the budget of 200 evaluated programs.
Figure 7: (a) Best-so-far scores of SCS and ExpEvolve with other LLMs. (b) Best-so-far scores of SCS , SCS+meta, and ExpEvolve .
Figure 8: Quality of discovered idea factors. (a) Pairwise accuracy of the discovered idea factors. (b) The idea factor with the largest weight. (c) Illustration of usage of factors in sumdiff task.
Figure 9: Results on MLS-Bench. (a) Mean final scores. (b,c) Trajectories on two example tasks.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 10: The iterative scientific discovery loop. Left: Conceptual flow of the agent. The agent maintains a scratchpad memory ( m ), proposes a program ( p ), and observes the outcome ( y ) which is constrained by the unknown world state ( θsci ). The outcome feeds back into the memory for the next step. Right: The diagram illustrates how the AI Scientist probes the unknown world state θsci . By proposing a candidate program pt , the agent triggers an experiment yielding outcome yt . This observation provides evidence about θsci , which is integrated into the agent’s scratchpad memory mt+1 . Over time steps t,t+1,… , this recurrent process allows the agent to navigate the performance landscape and converge towards optimal programs despite the static but unknown nature of θsci .
Symbol
Meaning
P
Program / pipeline / model space (candidate designs)
K
Number of candidate programs, K:=∣P∣ (finite in Theorem 3.1 )
p∈P
A program to evaluate (action)
X
Design-variable space (encoding of programs)
xp∈X
Encoding of program p (e.g., design variables X=xp )
z , Z(p)
An idea and the idea representation of program p (Definition 3.2 )
Appendix
Table 2: Notation used in the formulation and theorems.
Hyperparameter
N=20 , B=10
N=10 , B=20
Fraction of random exploration ρ
0.6
0.4
Discovery interval ndisc (generations)
2
1
Plateau window κ (generations)
4
2
Warm-up generations
2
1
Action rotation Nrot (generations)
6
3
Shared by both configurations
Appendix
Table 3: Hyperparameters of ExpEvolve in the main experiments. The budget of 200 evaluations is run with two configurations of generations N and batch size B . Both configurations are run on all 11 tasks, each with 3 seeds.
Task
Direction
Previous best
AlphaEvolve
First autocorrelation inequality
↓
1.5098
1.5053
Second autocorrelation inequality
↑
0.88922
0.8962
Uncertainty inequality
↓
0.3523
0.3521
Erdős minimum overlap
↓
0.380927
0.380924
Sums and differences of sets
↑
1.14465
1.1584
Max–min distance ratio ( 16 points)
↓
12.890
12.88927
Appendix
Table 4: Tasks, optimization directions, and reference values. The previous best values and the values of AlphaEvolve are collected by Gideoni et al. (2026) . For the uncertainty inequality, all methods in Gideoni et al. (2026) reach 0.3482 under their reformulated parameterization, which we use in our experiments. For the Hadamard matrix, the previous best is the normalized score of the best-known construction.
Task
Method
Config.
Seed 1
Seed 2
Seed 3
Mean
Hadamard ↑
ExpEvolve
10×20
0.9211
0.9357
0.9211
0.9259 ± 0.0084
ExpEvolve
20×10
0.9211
0.9211
0.9211
0.9211 ± 0.0000
SCS
10×20
0.8596
0.9211
0.7240
0.8349 ± 0.1008
SCS
20×10
0.8596
0.5665
0.5662
0.6641 ± 0.1693
ShinkaEvolve
–
0.5603
0.5733
0.8066
0.6467 ± 0.1386
Pack ↑
ExpEvolve
10×20
2.63304
2.63598
2.63595
2.63499 ± 0.00169
Appendix
Table 5: Final best score of each seed at the budget of 200 , and the mean ± standard deviation over seeds.
Task
Method
Config.
Seed 1
Seed 2
Seed 3
Mean
Kissing ↑
ExpEvolve
10×20
582
582
582
582 ± 0
ExpEvolve
20×10
414
582
582
526 ± 97
SCS
10×20
582
582
582
582 ± 0
SCS
20×10
406
438
394
413 ± 23
ShinkaEvolve
–
414
406
566
462 ± 90
Second autocorr. ↑
ExpEvolve
10×20
0.8825
0.8825
0.8825
0.8825 ± 0.0000
Appendix
Table 6: Final best score of each seed (continued) at the budget of 200 evaluated programs ( 199 for ShinkaEvolve ), and the mean ± standard deviation over seeds.
Task
Method
Config.
40
80
120
160
200
Hadamard ↑
ExpEvolve
10×20
0.8801 ± 0.0355
0.9211 ± 0.0000
0.9259 ± 0.0084
0.9259 ± 0.0084
0.9259 ± 0.0084
ExpEvolve
20×10
0.9006 ± 0.0355
0.9006 ± 0.0355
0.9211 ± 0.0000
0.9211 ± 0.0000
0.9211 ± 0.0000
SCS
10×20
0.5047 ± 0.0113
0.6446 ± 0.1866
0.6494 ± 0.1828
0.7144 ± 0.1502
0.8349 ± 0.1008
SCS
20×10
0.6506 ± 0.1821
0.6506 ± 0.1821
0.6556 ± 0.1771
0.6641 ± 0.1693
0.6641 ± 0.1693
ShinkaEvolve
–
0.4909 ± 0.0171
0.5093 ± 0.0093
0.5297 ± 0.0258
0.5588 ± 0.0131
0.6467 ± 0.1386
Pack ↑
ExpEvolve
10×20
2.62275 ± 0.00820
2.62721 ± 0.00567
2.63201 ± 0.00090
2.63499 ± 0.00169
2.63499 ± 0.00169
Appendix
Table 7: Best-so-far scores along the budget, as the mean ± standard deviation over 3 seeds after 40 , 80 , 120 , 160 , and 200 evaluated programs.
Task
Method
Config.
40
80
120
160
200
Kissing ↑
ExpEvolve
10×20
578 ± 6
582 ± 0
582 ± 0
582 ± 0
582 ± 0
ExpEvolve
20×10
348 ± 0
453 ± 113
523 ± 103
523 ± 103
526 ± 97
SCS
10×20
564 ± 3
582 ± 0
582 ± 0
582 ± 0
582 ± 0
SCS
20×10
394 ± 38
394 ± 38
402 ± 34
402 ± 33
413 ± 23
ShinkaEvolve
–
426 ± 68
459 ± 92
459 ± 92
461 ± 91
462 ± 90
Second autocorr. ↑
ExpEvolve
10×20
0.8825 ± 0.0000
0.8825 ± 0.0000
0.8825 ± 0.0000
0.8825 ± 0.0000
0.8825 ± 0.0000
Appendix
Table 8: Best-so-far scores along the budget (continued), as the mean ± standard deviation over 3 seeds after 40 , 80 , 120 , 160 , and 200 evaluated programs. For ShinkaEvolve , the last column reports 199 programs.
Task
Config.
Final of SCS
nSCS
nExpEvolve
nSCS/nExpEvolve
Hadamard
10×20
0.8349
186
10
18.6
Hadamard
20×10
0.6641
131
5
26.2
SumDiff
10×20
1.11608
180
81
2.2
SumDiff
20×10
1.11087
181
97
1.9
Heilbronn
10×20
0.0336
199
52
3.8
Heilbronn
20×10
0.0313
169
27
6.3
Appendix
Table 9: Numbers of evaluated programs that ExpEvolve and SCS need to reach the final best score of SCS , averaged over 3 seeds.
Evolve-based agent such as AlphaEvolve is one of the notable successes in using Large Language Models (LLMs) to build AI Scientists. These agents tackle open-ended scientific problems by iteratively improving and evolving programs, leveraging the prior knowledge and reasoning capabilities of LLMs. Despite the success, existing evolve-based agents lack targeted guidance for evolution and effective mechanisms for organizing and utilizing knowledge acquired from past evolutionary experience. Consequently, they suffer from decreasing evolution efficiency and exhibit oscillatory behavior when approaching known performance boundaries. To mitigate the gap, we develop CausalEvolve, equipped with a causal scratchpad that leverages LLMs to identify and reason about guiding factors for evolution. At the beginning, CausalEvolve first identifies outcome-level factors that offer complementary inspirations in improving the target objective. During the evolution, CausalEvolve also inspects surprise patterns during the evolution and abductive reasoning to hypothesize new factors, which in turn offer novel directions. Through comprehensive experiments, we show that CausalEvolve effectively improves the evolutionary efficiency and discovers better solutions in 4 challenging open-ended scientific tasks.
Yongqiang Chen, Chenxi Liu, Zhenhao Chen +3
MBZUAI · Carnegie Mellon University · TMLR Group, Hong Kong Baptist University +1
The increasing adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has enabled AI scientists to perform complex end-to-end scientific discovery tasks requiring coordination of specialized roles, including idea generation and experimental execution. However, most state-of-the-art AI scientist systems rely on static, hand-designed pipelines and fail to adapt based on accumulated interaction histories. As a result, these systems overlook promising research directions, repeat failed experiments, and pursue infeasible ideas. To address this, we introduce EvoScientist, an evolving multi-agent AI scientist framework that continuously improves research strategies through persistent memory and self-evolution. EvoScientist comprises three specialized agents: a Researcher Agent (RA) for scientific idea generation, an Engineer Agent (EA) for experiment implementation and execution, and an Evolution Manager Agent (EMA) that distills insights from prior interactions into reusable knowledge. EvoScientist contains two persistent memory modules: (i) an ideation memory, which summarizes feasible research directions from top-ranked ideas while recording previously unsuccessful directions; and (ii) an experimentation memory, which captures effective data processing and model training strategies derived from code search trajectories and best-performing implementations. These modules enable the RA and EA to retrieve relevant prior strategies, improving idea quality and code execution success rates over time. Experiments show that EvoScientist outperforms 7 open-source and commercial state-of-the-art systems in scientific idea generation, achieving higher novelty, feasibility, relevance, and clarity via automatic and human evaluation. EvoScientist also substantially improves code execution success rates through multi-agent evolution, demonstrating persistent memory's effectiveness for end-to-end scientific discovery.
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