Directing to Diversify: Multi-Directional Search for Automatic Heuristic Design
Authors: Jianghan Zhu, Jianan Zhou, Fei Liu, Ni Zhang, Yaoxin Wu, Zhuoyi Lin, Zhiguang Cao
Organizations: Singapore Management University · Nanyang Technological University · University of Zurich · ETH Zurich · Eindhoven University of Technology · A*STAR
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong potential to automate heuristic design for NP-hard combinatorial optimization (CO) tasks without human intervention. Recent methods predominantly rely on evolutionary computation (EC) frameworks, where heuristic diversification is mainly induced through EC-like operators or downstream selection, while the direction of heuristic transformation remains largely unharnessed. In this paper, we propose a multi-directional Perturbation-Rewrite Search (PRS) framework for automatic heuristic design that factorizes heuristic transformation through directional search primitives at the generation level. Specifically, PRS operates on heuristic ideas through three complementary directions: expansion toward richer and more expressive designs, compression toward simpler and less specialized designs, and steering for fine-grained refinement, together enabling broader and more sustained exploration of diverse regions in the heuristic design space. PRS further organizes candidate exploration within a breadth-first search-based process with adaptive operator control, which ensures thorough candidate utilization and sustained exploration, and maintains strong search dynamics while preventing premature convergence. Extensive empirical results across diverse CO tasks show that PRS consistently discovers high-quality heuristics, demonstrating the effectiveness and generality of explicitly directional exploration design.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An illustration of PRS pipeline.
Figure 2: An overview of BFS-based Heuristic Search. Starting from a root parent heuristic with its corresponding idea, PRS performs a BFS-style expansion in which new offspring ideas are generated via multi-directional perturbation and then realized as executable code through rewriting. The offspring codes are then evaluated and selectively retained in a fixed-size frontier at each depth. Terminal nodes correspond to pruned or non-extendable offspring. Dark green boxes denote heuristics that outperform the root parent, while light green (or light red ) boxes represent worse-than-root offspring that are accepted (or rejected) for inclusion in the next frontier. Each parent heuristic across BFS paths retains opportunity for further expansion, preventing early domination by a single trajectory. The beam size is set to κ=3 for illustration.
Task
CVRP
OP
N=
N=50
N=100
N=200
N=50
N=100
N=200
Method
Obj ↓
Gap ↓
Obj ↓
Gap ↓
Obj ↓
Gap ↓
Obj ↑
Gap ↓
Obj ↑
Gap ↓
Obj ↑
Gap ↓
DeepACO
8.888
–
14.932
–
27.159
–
19.867
–
36.392
–
63.380
–
ACO
18.282
105.69%
30.030
101.11%
48.582
78.88%
13.570
31.70%
24.149
33.64%
37.109
41.45%
LLM-based AHD (GPT-5-nano)
Table 1: Performance of ACO-based heuristics on CVRP and OP. All methods are evaluated on three test sets of 64 randomly generated instances each, following the setup in Dat et al. (2025) ; Zheng et al. (2025) . Test sets whose scales match the validation sets are underlined. Optimal solutions are approximated using DeepACO with significantly more ants and iterations than those in the baselines. The best-performing method is shaded, and each test set’s overall best result is in bold.
Test Sets
1k_100
1k_500
5k_100
5k_500
10k_100
10k_500
AVG
LLM-based AHD (GPT-5-nano)
Best Fit
4.77%
0.25%
4.31%
0.55%
4.05%
0.47%
2.40%
First Fit
5.02%
0.25%
4.65%
0.55%
4.36%
0.50%
2.56%
FunSearch
2.45%
0.66%
1.30%
0.25%
1.05%
0.21%
0.99%
EoH
2.69%
0.25%
1.63%
0.53%
1.47%
0.45%
1.17%
Table 2: Online bin packing problem results . The first four problem scales are used during validation, and the remaining are used for held-out test. Notations of problem scales are abbreviated, e.g., 1k_500 indicates 1,000 items and a fixed bin capacity 500.
Knapsack Problem (KP)
Test Sets
N=50
N=100
N=200
Method
Obj. ↑
Gap ↓
Obj. ↑
Gap ↓
Obj. ↑
Gap ↓
Optimal
20.037
–
40.271
–
57.448
–
GC
19.830
1.04%
40.030
0.60%
57.115
0.58%
POMO
19.612
2.12%
39.676
1.48%
57.271
0.31%
Table 3: Performance of step-by-step constructive heuristics on KP. Near-optimal objectives are obtained by OR-Tools. The best-performing method is shaded, and each test set’s overall best result is in bold.
Figure 6
Appendix figures & tables21 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Problem Size
Perturbation Moves
Iteration Limit
TSP20
5
73
TSP50
40
300
TSP100
40
1800
TSP200
40
1000
TSP500
60
250
TSP1000
80
100
Appendix
Table 4: GLS parameter settings for different TSP problem scales. The number of perturbation moves controls the strength of solution diversification, while the iteration limit determines the overall local search budget. Heuristics for TSP under GLS found by all LLM-based AHD frameworks are tested under the same configurations here.
Figure 5: Diversity analysis (CDI) of EoH, ReEvo, MCTS-AHD, and PRS on OBPP-Constructive and OP-ACO at different search stages ( 0.4T , 0.8T , and T ). Error bars indicate standard deviation over three independent runs.
Figure 6: Idea-space diversity measured by mean nearest-neighbor distance (MNND) for PRS, MCTS-AHD, and EoH. Higher values indicate that retained heuristic ideas remain farther from their closest semantic neighbors.
Figure 7: Operator contribution statistics. Each curve represents the cumulative share of best-so-far improvements triggered by each perturbation operator across all runs.
Task
Evaluation stage
Expansion
Compression
Steering
Sel.
Imp.
Gain
Sel.
Imp.
Gain
Sel.
Imp.
Gain
OBPP-Constructive
0–249
32.42
35.21
3.241
34.25
26.67
5.881
33.33
41.10
4.849
250–499
32.13
23.75
1.314
34.14
12.94
0.678
33.73
16.67
2.947
500–749
34.15
20.24
3.541
32.11
16.46
2.415
33.74
22.89
1.958
750–999
31.43
16.88
2.632
31.02
10.53
4.006
37.55
23.91
7.667
CVRP-ACO
0–249
31.36
66.67
3.947
34.09
66.67
4.059
34.55
53.95
6.751
Appendix
Table 5: Stage-wise behavior of UCB-based operator selection. For each operator, we report the selection rate (Sel.), any-improvement rate (Imp.), and mean best-child relative improvement (Gain), all in %. Statistics are aggregated over five runs.
Task
Operator
ID gap ↓
OOD gap ↓
KP-Constructive
Expansion
0.03%±0.01%
0.04%±0.02%
Compression
0.06%±0.02%
0.03%±0.00%
Steering
0.05%±0.02%
0.05%±0.03%
CVRP-ACO
Expansion
0.89%±0.53%
6.31%±1.54%
Compression
1.45%±0.71%
5.94%±1.02%
Steering
1.26%±0.43%
6.52%±0.63%
Appendix
Table 6: Generalization performance of the top-five children generated by each perturbation operator. Children are selected according to validation performance within each run. Lower gap is better.
Task
CVRP
MKP
OP
N=
N=50
N=100
N=100
N=200
N=50
N=100
Method
Obj. ↓
Obj. ↓
Obj. ↑
Obj. ↑
Obj. ↑
Obj. ↑
ACO
18.282
30.030
18.969
38.766
13.570
24.149
DeepACO
8.888
14.932
23.091
41.988
19.867
36.392
LLM-based AHD (GPT-5-nano)
EoH
9.360
16.700
22.518
40.568
14.776
28.627
Appendix
Table 7: Performance of ACO-based heuristics on black-box CVRP, MKP, and OP . We follow the settings of ReEvo ( Ye et al., 2024 ) in heuristic evolution and run each LLM-based method three times for average performance.
Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP)
Method
TSP 50
TSP 100
TSP 200
TSP 500
Obj. ↓
Gap ↓
Obj. ↓
Gap ↓
Obj. ↓
Gap ↓
Obj. ↓
Gap ↓
LKH3 ( Lin and Kernighan, 1973 )
5.680
–
7.762
–
10.715
–
16.524
–
POMO
5.697
0.30%
8.001
3.08%
12.897
20.37%
20.190
22.18%
GC (Nearest Neighbour)
6.944
22.26%
9.755
25.67%
13.502
26.02%
20.938
26.71%
LLM-based AHD GPT-4.1-nano
Appendix
Table 8: Performance of step-by-step construction heuristics on TSP, averaged over three runs. Bold denotes the best non-optimal objective value at each problem size. For each LLM setting, the best LLM-based AHD result in each column is shaded gray. Gaps are the relative difference to the optimal (or near-optimal) objective value obtained by LKH3.
Figure 8: Pareto analysis of runtime and solution quality on TSP under the GLS framework. Each scatter point corresponds to one heuristic candidate evaluated during search, where the x-axis denotes runtime per instance and the y-axis denotes tour length. Results are shown for four problem sizes ( n=50,100,200,500 ). The connected frontier for each method highlights the best observed quality–efficiency trade-off among its discovered heuristics. Lower tour length and runtime are preferred.
Method
TSP50
TSP100
TSP200
TSP500
Gap(%) ↓
Time(s)
Gap(%) ↓
Time(s)
Gap(%) ↓
Time(s)
Gap(%) ↓
Time(s)
NeuOpt*
0.000
1.32
0.027
2.67
0.403
4.81
–
–
GNNGLS*
0.052
3.83
0.705
6.78
3.522
9.92
–
–
EoH
0.000
0.03
0.390
0.47
0.196
0.90
1.667
1.93
ReEvo
0.000
0.04
0.025
0.55
0.338
1.26
1.703
4.56
MCTS-AHD
0.000
0.02
0.000
0.47
0.270
0.90
1.680
1.82
Appendix
Table 9: Performance of heuristics on TSP benchmarks with guided local search framework. For a fair comparison, we report the result of the best performing heuristic over three independent runs following ReEvo ( Ye et al., 2024 ) . Gap (%) denotes the relative optimality gap to the best-known solution, and Time (s) denotes the average runtime per instance. * denotes results drawn from ReEvo ( Ye et al., 2024 ) .
Test Set
GUPTA
CDS
NEH
NEHFF
PFSPNet
LS
ILS1
ILS2
EoH
Ours
j50_m5
12.23
6.98
0.57
0.40
0.51
0.32
0.15
0.32
0.00
0.00
j50_m10
20.11
12.72
3.47
3.62
3.48
3.33
1.47
0.29
0.21
0.17
j50_m20
22.78
15.03
5.48
5.10
5.05
4.67
2.13
0.34
0.72
0.83
j100_m5
5.98
5.10
0.39
0.31
0.31
0.28
0.20
0.38
-0.04
-0.05
j100_m10
15.03
9.36
2.07
1.88
1.72
1.38
0.77
0.34
0.22
0.14
j100_m20
21.00
13.55
3.58
3.73
3.56
3.51
2.27
0.43
0.62
0.27
Appendix
Table 10: Results on Taillard ( Taillard, 1993 ) instance sets. The results of non-LLM-based methods are cited from EoH ( Liu et al., 2024a ) . Each entry reports the average relative gap (%) to the known upper bound in Taillard (lower is better). The best result in each row is highlighted in bold . Additionally, among all the LLM-based AHD methods, the best value is shaded.
Instance
Christofides
Greedy
Nearest insertion
Nearest-greedy
GHPP-best
EoH
ReEvo
Ours
bier127
13.03
19.50
23.05
23.25
15.64
19.60
10.79
8.31
d493
9.52
16.68
20.39
24.00
15.58
17.02
13.43
13.15
ch130
10.09
28.40
19.21
25.66
14.77
12.47
9.40
12.24
eil51
15.18
13.03
16.14
31.96
10.20
18.51
6.47
15.20
kroA150
13.44
20.24
19.09
26.08
15.59
24.61
11.62
9.86
Appendix
Table 11: Results of the GP-based method GHPP, and LLM-based AHD methods on designing step-by-step constructive heuristics for TSP on TSPLib instances. We report the optimality gap (%) of each instance. The results of GHPP-best, Christofides ( Christofides, 2022 ) , Greedy ( Brecklinghaus and Hougardy, 2015 ) , Nearest insertion and Nearest-greedy ( Rosenkrantz et al., 1977 ) are taken from ( Duflo et al., 2019 ) . LLM-based AHD methods (EoH, ReEvo, and PRS ) are each run three times with different starting nodes and averaged. The leading LLM-designed heuristic on each instance is shaded, and the overall best heuristic is shown in bold.
Method
run1
run2
run3
run4
run5
run6
run7
run8
run9
run10
avg
std
p-value
CVRP-ACO ( ↓ )
MCTS-AHD
8.842
8.957
8.623
8.993
9.012
8.790
9.103
8.929
9.231
9.186
8.967
0.184
–
PRS
8.563
8.588
8.751
8.785
8.989
8.949
8.835
8.943
9.012
9.058
8.847
0.174
0.0331
KP-Constructive ( ↑ )
MCTS-AHD
40.249
40.255
40.261
40.257
40.258
40.252
40.258
40.254
40.260
40.252
40.256
0.004
–
Appendix
Table 12: Statistical significance analysis of PRS over multiple independent runs. The reported p-values are from one-sided paired t -tests comparing PRS against MCTS-AHD. For TSP-GLS, the reported objective values denote gap (%).
Variations
KP ( n=100 ) ↑
CVRP ( n=50 ) ↓
PRS-BFS
40.2618 ± 0.0145
8.9583 ± 0.0726
PRS-CoT-SC
40.2532 ± 0.0418
9.3159 ± 0.0586
PRS-MCTS
40.2584 ± 0.0175
9.0728 ± 0.0960
Appendix
Table 13: Comparison of search strategy variants within the PRS framework. Results are reported as mean ± standard deviation over three independent runs. For KP, higher is better; for CVRP, lower is better. The maximum number of evaluated heuristics is fixed to T=1000 for all variants.
OBPP
N=
1k_100
5k_500
Method
Gap (%) ↓
std (%)
Gap (%) ↓
std (%)
Best Fit
4.77%
–
0.55%
–
Appendix
Table 14: Benchmarking PRS on different LLMs on OBPP (average gap (%) to the lower bound). Best result among all methods of each problem size is highlighted in bold while the best result among all LLM-based results of each scale is shaded.
KP
N=
N=100
N=200
Method
Obj. ↑
Gap (%) ↓
Obj. ↑
Gap (%) ↓
Optimal
40.271
–
57.448
–
Appendix
Table 15: Benchmarking PRS on different LLMs on KP (average objective and average gap (%) to optimal). Best result among all methods of each problem size is highlighted in bold while the best result among all LLM-based results of each scale is shaded.
Method
Metric
OBPP-Constructive
KP-Constructive
CVRP-ACO
OP-ACO
ReEvo
Time
8h
-
4h
5h
Input Tokens
2.94M
-
3.30M
2.82M
Output Tokens
1.02M
-
1.65M
1.68M
#LLM Queries
2869
-
1433
1410
EoH
Time
10h
9h
6h
6h
Input Tokens
2.40M
1.80M
1.83M
2.94M
Appendix
Table 16: Cost comparison across different AHD frameworks.
Modified Parameter
Value
KP-Constructive
OBPP-Constructive
Gap
# Token (M)
Gap
# Token (M)
–
(κ=d=3),Δ/T=0.1Tsel=1.0,∣H∣=50
0.024%
4.25
0.802%
6.07
beam/depth
(κ=d=4)
0.026%
3.89
0.835%
5.72
beam/depth
(κ=d=2)
0.031%
4.98
0.913%
6.35
Stagnation ratio Δ/T
0.05
0.027%
4.13
0.894%
6.18
Stagnation ratio Δ/T
0.20
0.023%
4.40
0.836%
6.36
Appendix
Table 17: Sensitivity analysis of PRS on KP and OBPP under the step-by-step constructive framework. Lower gap is better.
Figure 9: Example of an expansion operation on heuristics of OP under the ACO framework. The parent heuristic (top) primarily scores transitions using prize-to-distance preference and a route-length scaling factor. After expansion and LLM-based rewriting, the offspring (bottom) retains this backbone while introducing additional reward-aware structures, including local prize density and global high prize information. These additions enrich the heuristic’s decision logic and improve the validation score from g=13.560 to g=14.194 ( +4.68% ).
Figure 10: Example of a compression operation on heuristics of OBPP under the step-by-step constructive framework. The parent heuristic (top) combines adaptive fit thresholds, variance-based global weighting, disparity control, and neighborhood smoothness. After compression and LLM-based rewriting, the offspring (bottom) retains the core fit, disparity, and smoothness mechanisms while simplifying the adaptive threshold and global weighting logic. The resulting heuristic improves the validation score from g=2.170 to g=1.846 .
Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced Automated Heuristic Design (AHD) in combinatorial optimization (CO) in the past few years. However, existing discovery pipelines often require extensive manual trial-and-error or reliance on domain expertise to adapt to new or complex problems. This stems from tightly coupled internal mechanisms that limit systematic improvement of the LLM-driven design process. To address this challenge, we propose a structured framework for LLM-driven AHD that explicitly decomposes the heuristic discovery process into modular stages: a forward pass for evaluation, a backward pass for analytical feedback, and an update step for program refinement. This separation provides a clear abstraction for iterative refinement and enables principled improvements of individual components. We validate our framework across four diverse real-world CO domains, where it consistently outperforms baselines, achieving up to 0.17 improvement in QYI on unseen test sets. Finally, we show that several popular AHD methods are restricted instantiations of our framework. By integrating them in our structured pipeline, we can upgrade the components modularly and significantly improve their performance.
Mingxin Yu, Ruixiao Yang, Chuchu Fan
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) with evolutionary computation has emerged as a powerful paradigm for automated heuristic design in combinatorial optimization. However, existing approaches suffer from mode collapse, converging to homogeneous populations that lack semantic diversity and fail to explore the full algorithmic space. We propose Quality-Diversity Evolution (QDEvo), a multi-objective framework that integrates Quality-Diversity optimization with LLM-driven heuristic search, maintaining an unbounded archive of semantically diverse algorithms using pre-trained code embeddings and incorporating hierarchical self-reflection to guide the evolutionary process. Extensive experiments across standard benchmarks and real-world industrial applications demonstrate that QDEvo significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods in both Hypervolume and Inverted Generational Distance metrics. Our framework enables the discovery of heuristics that are simultaneously high-performing, computationally efficient, and semantically diverse, providing practitioners with a rich portfolio of solutions for complex optimization problems.
Nam Do Khanh, Nhat Nguyen Tran Minh, Dat Pham Vu Tuan +2
Hanoi University of Science and Technology Hanoi, Vietnam · George Mason University Fairfax, Virginia, USA
In this paper, we introduce ES-AHD, a novel framework that fundamentally integrates Evolution Strategy (ES) into Large Language Model (LLM)-driven Automatic Heuristic Design (AHD). Existing evolutionary approaches predominantly rely on random, individual-level mutation, leading to blind search and an imbalance between exploration and exploitation. To address these issues, ES-AHD introduces two core mechanisms. First, Semantic Recombination via LLMs discards traditional point-to-point reproduction. By leveraging the LLM's contextual reasoning to explicitly extract core insights from top-performing individuals, the algorithm establishes a promising semantic search direction. This transforms random code mutation into targeted, center-guided sampling inspired by ES. Second, Stochastic Covariance Adaptation via Temperature Sampling dynamically addresses the exploration-exploitation dilemma. By mapping the covariance matrix in ES to the LLM's sampling temperature, the framework employs a stochastic random walk mechanism with momentum. This approach primarily shrinks the search radius for micro-level code refinement, while retaining the critical ability to occasionally sample higher temperatures to escape semantic local optima. Ultimately, ES-AHD provides a highly directional, robust, and efficient search paradigm, significantly accelerating the generation of high-quality heuristic algorithms. The source code is available at: https://github.com/Mriya0306/ES-AHD.
Yutao Lai, Kezhao Lai, Hai-Lin Liu +2
School of Mathematics and Statistics Guangdong University of Technology Guangzhou, China · School of Computer Science and Technology Xidian University Xi’an, China · School of Systems Science Beijing Normal University Beijing, China