LLM-guided evolutionary search iteratively selects existing programs, uses LLMs as mutation operators to generate a new program, and evaluates it to guide subsequent search. To preserve diversity and reduce the risk of premature convergence, it often adopts the island model, in which groups of programs, called islands, evolve separately. However, this structure alone does not guarantee distinct search directions, as islands may start from similar programs or converge toward similar solutions during evolution. This suggests that diversity must be considered throughout the search process, from initializing islands with distinct programs to developing island trajectories and sharing discoveries across islands. To this end, we propose HoliDivEvolve , a holistic approach to establishing and effectively utilizing island diversity throughout evolutionary search. Specifically, we introduce diverse initialization to establish different initial programs, trajectory adaptive island selection to allocate computation based on current score, recent growth, and the remaining search budget, and growth adaptive migration to share alternative ideas across islands. Experiments across diverse benchmarks show that HoliDivEvolve achieves competitive performance on most evaluated tasks. We further conduct controlled analyses to examine how our design choices affect search behavior and final performance.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of HoliDivEvolve . We consider three components for diversity management: diverse initialization, trajectory adaptive island selection, and growth adaptive migration.
Mathematical Optimization
Systems Optimization
Backbone
Algorithm
Heilbronn Triangle ↑
Circle Packing (Square) ↑
Signal Processing ↑
PRISM ↑
EPLB ↑
CloudCast ↓
GPT-5
OpenEvolve
0.028±.006
2.531±.018
0.569±.047
26.23±.00
0.127±.000
926.9±171.0
ShinkaEvolve
0.032±.012
2.464±.083
0.485±.044
26.26±.00
0.118±.010
954.8±125.0
AdaEvolve
0.033±.001
2.629±.001
0.698±.017
≤26.26 †
0.134±.010
662.3±.1
Ours
0.034±.002
2.622±.008
0.722±.013
26.26±.00
0.146±.000
643.9±36.6
Qwen3-32B
OpenEvolve
0.012±.011
1.970±.073
0.531±.029
23.55±.63
0.127±.000
1020.2±25.9
Table 1: Performance comparison across mathematical and systems optimization benchmarks using GPT-5 and Qwen3-32B (mean ± SD). Bold indicates the best observed mean within each backbone, and underline indicates the second-best distinct mean, with ties determined at displayed precision. GPT-5 baselines are from Tables 1–2 of Cemri et al. (2026) (three runs). All methods use a total budget of 100 program generations: Ours allocates 20 generations to diverse initialization and 80 rounds to evolutionary search, while the baselines use all 100 rounds for search with the same initial program. Arrows indicate the preferred direction.
Metric ↓
Same
Ours (Max–min)
Best program similarity
0.183
0.062
Population proximity
0.424
0.086
Exact code overlap
0.183
0.000
Descendant proximity
0.122
0.085
Table 2: Cross-island redundancy after 20 evolutionary rounds in Signal Processing under same start and max–min initialization. Lower values indicate less overlap across islands. Best program similarity compares the current best programs across islands. Population proximity measures similarity between island populations. Exact-code overlap measures shared normalized programs; and Descendant proximity excludes the initial programs before measuring population similarity. Detailed definitions are provided in Appendix A.4 .
Initialization
Mean ± SD ↑
Same
0.700 ± 0.026
Random
0.682 ± 0.020
Ours (Max–min)
0.714 ± 0.022
Table 3: Comparison of initialization strategies on Signal Processing using Qwen3.8-27B over five random seeds. Results report the mean ± sample standard deviation of the final best score.
Selection policy
Final score ↑
Selection-count SD
Round-robin
0.628 ± 0.031
0.00
Uniform
0.645 ± 0.036
5.49
UCB
0.633 ± 0.036
3.48
Ours
0.659 ± 0.044
17.33
Table 4: Comparison of island-selection policies using Qwen3.8-27B. Final score reports mean ± sample standard deviation. Selection-count SD is the standard deviation of the selection counts across the four islands within each run, averaged across runs.
Figure 2: Qualitative example of migration on Signal Processing. (a) The recipient parent and migrant exhibit complementary strengths, and the resulting child improves both accuracy and smoothness over the parent. (b) Migration occurs at iteration 25, followed by the discovery of an improved child at iteration 41.
Diverse init.
Adaptive selection
Adaptive migration
Final score ↑
0.698 ± 0.032
✓
0.703 ± 0.047
✓
✓
0.700 ± 0.026
✓
✓
✓
0.714 ± 0.022
Table 5: Component ablation on Signal Processing over five random seeds. Checkmarks indicate the use of diverse initialization, trajectory adaptive island selection, and growth adaptive migration. Without these components, we use the same initial program, round-robin selection, and no migration, respectively. Results report mean ± sample SD.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: Example best-so-far score trajectories on Signal Processing using Qwen3-32B. Ours uses 80 evolutionary rounds after 20 initial program generations, while the baselines use 100 evolutionary rounds.
Figure 4: Example solutions for Circle Packing with n=26 using Qwen3-32B. Each panel shows a circle arrangement in the unit square, with its corresponding score in parentheses. Higher scores indicate better solutions.
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.
Yang Yang, Zining Zhong, Jindong Li +5
Artificial Intelligence Thrust, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou), Guangzhou, China.
LLM-guided evolutionary methods such as AlphaEvolve have proven effective in domains like math, systems research, and algorithmic discovery, but their reliance on frontier models makes each run expensive. We argue this is largely an artifact of how existing frameworks allocate search: archives that fail to preserve solution diversity force compensation through stronger mutation models; blind model use spends frontier dollars on local edits a smaller model could handle; and full-set evaluation wastes rollouts on redundant examples. We introduce LEVI, a harness-first evolutionary framework built on the bet that stronger search architectures can substitute for or even outperform larger LLMs in evolutionary search. LEVI improves on three core components of evolutionary search: a solution database that establishes diversity from the beginning, and then maintains it throughout the run; a smarter mutation router that plays into the strengths of large and small LLMs; and a rank-preserving proxy benchmark for rollout-heavy settings. Across systems-research benchmarks LEVI attains the highest score on a budget 3.3-6.7x smaller than the published frontier-model runs of existing frameworks like ShinkaEvolve, GEPA, and AdaEvolve; on one problem, LEVI matches the existing best at a 35x lower cost. On prompt optimization, LEVI matches or exceeds GEPA at less than half of its rollout budget on four different benchmarks. LEVI is available as an open-source framework at https://github.com/ttanv/levi.
Large Language Model (LLM)-guided evolutionary search is increasingly used for automated algorithm discovery, yet most current methods track search progress primarily through executable programs and scalar fitness. Even when natural-language reasoning is used through heuristic descriptions or reflection, it typically remains transient mutation context or unstructured memory, rather than organized as persistent population-level state over strategic directions. As a result, evolutionary search can struggle to distinguish syntactically different implementations of the same idea, preserve lower-fitness but strategically promising directions, or detect when an entire family of strategies has saturated. We introduce \model, a modular strategy-space layer that turns language-level strategic reasoning into first-class population-level evolutionary state in LLM-driven program search. \model represents each candidate program with an explicit natural-language strategy, clusters the archive by strategy semantics, retrieves behaviorally complementary inspirations, and periodically navigates the strategy landscape to avoid saturated directions. Without modifying the underlying evolutionary algorithms, \model improves existing evolutionary backbones across algorithm discovery, systems optimization, and agent-scaffold design tasks in most settings. Across four systems benchmarks, \model achieves a 20.6% average relative improvement, with the best single run on Prism scoring 3× higher. These results suggest that persistent strategy representations provide a practical mechanism for improving the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of LLM-guided evolutionary search, pointing toward compound AI systems whose search capabilities benefit from the structured accumulation and reuse of algorithmic strategies.
Sichun Luo, Yi Huang, Haochen Luo +7
1The University of Hong Kong · 2JIUTIAN Research, China Mobile · 3City University of Hong Kong