Reflective text optimization makes agentic systems better, but the optimization loop is itself a resource-hungry workload whose sequential structure leaves parallel evaluation capacity idle. We extend the open-source GEPA optimizer to propose and evaluate a batch of candidates on each optimization step instead of one candidate at a time. In our sweep on two tasks, most batched runs finished in half the wall-clock time or less, and the fastest in about a quarter to a third. Batched settings also achieved higher held-out test scores, from 68.9% to 72.1% on LiveBench-Math (with 2×2) and from 49.0% to 60.0% on HoVer (with 8×1). A simple runtime model explains the measured speedups under a finite worker pool, and batched settings also spend their metric-call and dollar budgets more efficiently. We frame the axes along which a reflective optimization step can scale in parallel, a first look at allocating a fixed optimization budget across them.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: At the same metric-call budget, parallel proposals are faster and better than single mutation, achieving up to about a 3 to 4 × speedup, while scoring up to 11 points higher on the held-out test set.
Figure 2: From best-candidate selection to parallel proposals. SelectBestCandidate extends only the current best candidate, GEPA’s Pareto-based candidate sampling explores a broader tree one proposal at a time, and parallel proposals ( P×N ) extend several frontier candidates at once.
Figure 3: One batched iteration. GEPA samples P parents from the frontier, draws N reflective mutations for each parent, and scores all P⋅N children in one parallel evaluation. This lets GEPA propose more candidates in each iteration while paying the iteration latency once.
Figure 4: As the per-step width P⋅N scales up, runtime falls with diminishing returns. The finite-worker prediction matches the measured runtimes. Most settings perform as well as or better than single mutation on test, and the best setting scores much higher.
Figure 5: Best validation quality against metric calls consumed, for single mutation and 2×4 . 2×4 dominates small budgets and scores higher on the held-out test set.
Figure 6: Best validation quality against total LLM spend, solver and reflection calls combined. The batched setting reaches strong validation quality within the first few dollars.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: Scaling axes for the optimization step: more parents per step ( P ), more mutations per parent ( N ), and a larger reflection mini-batch per mutation (ComBEE).
Reflective text-space optimizers such as GEPA and SkillOpt have reported large gains on frontier and mid-size models. We test replication across two reasoning-native target-serving configurations: DeepSeek V4 Flash through DwarfStar and Qwen3.8-27B through LM Studio. For each target, we evaluate the same held-out tasks and four conditions - minimal baseline, GEPA prompt, SkillOpt skill, and manually engineered prompt - on HotpotQA (n=500 per condition) and MATH-500 (n=250). In the primary Qwen v2 rerun under the same frozen protocol, GEPA selects the HotpotQA seed and exactly reproduces baseline behavior, whereas SkillOpt's validation gain reverses into held-out degradation. On MATH-500, GEPA raises exact match from 0.828 to 0.904 while reducing latency but increasing token consumption, so lower response time does not imply lower token cost. DeepSeek likewise shows its strongest GEPA effect on MATH-500 (0.852 to 0.908). Across both targets, GEPA's strongest gains occur on MATH-500, while neither optimizer improves the HotpotQA baseline. Optimization is therefore task- and method-dependent, and validation gains may reverse on held-out evaluation. An earlier Qwen run is retained as serving-sensitivity evidence. These results suggest that textual headroom for a model-task pair and the observed effect of a text-space optimizer are more informative when decomposed into content/reasoning, answer-realization/evaluator alignment, and serving-completion/reliability. The cross-benchmark pattern further suggests that optimization may benefit from low-ambiguity, actionable evaluation signals.
Andrea Giummarra, Carmelo Baglieri, Antonio Di Maria +3
Evision srl, Ragusa, Italy · Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Catania, Catania, Italy
Reflective optimizers such as GEPA improve language model prompts from execution traces and evaluator feedback; full-program extensions can also rewrite tools and control flow. In practice, a user hands the same endpoint heterogeneous requests whose effective solutions require different tools, reasoning modes, and control flow. Optimizing one shared program leaves this division of work implicit in source-code search, while optimizing a separate program per request family fixes it beforehand. We introduce Adaptive-GEPA, which learns both how to divide requests and how to solve them. It evolves a router and a library of specialist programs under one search budget. The router's instructions, each specialist's description, and its program code are plain, human-readable text, edited from feedback. To combine branches, it aligns specialists by the requests they handle and inherits descriptions together with programs. On a fixed mixture of four task families, the reported Qwen3-8B run evolves four experts without supplying family labels to the router or reflection model; its routing matches the task partition on all 651 test requests. Its family-mean test score (x100) rises from 52.6 to 70.6, compared with 62.5 for GEPA's full-program adapter and 54.0 for GRPO at a nominal budget of 18,000 scored calls. These counts do not equate total compute. Figure 1 summarizes the learning curves, final test scores, and routing agreement.
Tianyu Chen, Yasi Zhang, Ruiyi Wang +3
University of Texas at Austin · University of California, Los Angeles · University of California, San Diego +3
Can a single LLM-based optimization system match specialized tools across fundamentally different domains? We show that when optimization problems are formulated as improving a text artifact evaluated by a scoring function, a single AI-based optimization system-supporting single-task search, multi-task search with cross-problem transfer, and generalization to unseen inputs-achieves state-of-the-art results across six diverse tasks. Our system discovers agent architectures that nearly triple Gemini Flash's ARC-AGI accuracy (32.5% to 89.5%), finds scheduling algorithms that cut cloud costs by 40%, generates CUDA kernels where 87% match or beat PyTorch, and outperforms AlphaEvolve's reported circle packing solution (n=26). Ablations across three domains reveal that actionable side information yields faster convergence and substantially higher final scores than score-only feedback, and that multi-task search outperforms independent optimization given equivalent per-problem budget through cross-task transfer, with benefits scaling with the number of related tasks. Together, we show for the first time that text optimization with LLM-based search is a general-purpose problem-solving paradigm, unifying tasks traditionally requiring domain-specific algorithms under a single framework. We open-source optimize_anything with support for multiple backends as part of the GEPA project at https://github.com/gepa-ai/gepa .