aiqbench analysis
This paper challenges the assumption that complex code evolution pipelines are necessary for high performance, demonstrating that simple baselines often match or exceed them across mathematical bounds, agentic scaffolds, and optimization tasks. The key takeaway is that expanding the search space and refining evaluation procedures to reduce stochasticity are more critical drivers of progress than algorithmic complexity itself.
Simple Baselines are Competitive with Code Evolution
arXiv:2602.16805v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Code evolution is a family of techniques that rely on large language models to search through possible computer programs by evolving existing code. While code evolution pipelines have shown impressive performance across domains, many are highly complex and are typically not compared to simpler alternatives. To prevent bad comparisons from stagnating the field, we propose two simple baselines and compare them to popular pipelines across several domains: finding better mathematical bounds, designing agentic scaffolds, developing heuristic combinatorial optimization algorithms, and machine learning competitions. Surprisingly, the baselines match or outperform existing methods across all domains, prompting a closer look at which factors drive performance in different settings. For mathematical bounds, we find that the search space matters far more than the exact search algorithm, with both simple and complex methods performing similarly given the same search space. Thus, expanding the search space is what matters for improving performance, and does so across all pipelines. Moreover, different domain knowledge embedded in prompts can significantly affect the search's efficiency, potentially leading to overestimating a pipeline's sample efficiency. For automated agentic scaffold design, we show that typical high-variance evaluations lead to all automated search methods picking subpar scaffolds relative to a simple majority vote. To mitigate this, we propose improved evaluation procedures that reduce stochasticity while keeping the search economically feasible. Overall, these results indicate that further improving code evolution's performance depends more on the setup surrounding the search pipeline than on the pipeline itself. We hope these insights will enable developing new code evolution methods and help spur meaningful progress in the field.
Abstract:Code evolution is a family of techniques that rely on large language models to search through possible computer programs by evolving existing code. While code evolution pipelines have shown impressive performance across domains, many are highly complex and are typically not compared to simpler alternatives. To prevent bad comparisons from stagnating the field, we propose two simple baselines and compare them to popular pipelines across several domains: finding better mathematical bounds, designing agentic scaffolds, developing heuristic combinatorial optimization algorithms, and machine learning competitions. Surprisingly, the baselines match or outperform existing methods across all domains, prompting a closer look at which factors drive performance in different settings. For mathematical bounds, we find that the search space matters far more than the exact search algorithm, with both simple and complex methods performing similarly given the same search space. Thus, expanding the search space is what matters for improving performance, and does so across all pipelines. Moreover, different domain knowledge embedded in prompts can significantly affect the search's efficiency, potentially leading to overestimating a pipeline's sample efficiency. For automated agentic scaffold design, we show that typical high-variance evaluations lead to all automated search methods picking subpar scaffolds relative to a simple majority vote. To mitigate this, we propose improved evaluation procedures that reduce stochasticity while keeping the search economically feasible. Overall, these results indicate that further improving code evolution's performance depends more on the setup surrounding the search pipeline than on the pipeline itself. We hope these insights will enable developing new code evolution methods and help spur meaningful progress in the field.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2602.16805 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2602.16805v2 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.16805 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 355 words
Related coverage
News Archive 2026
Quantum Computing Report · Jul 25, 2026
Humanity’s Last Invention — Richard Socher of Recursive
Latent Space · Sep 14, 2026
RUBAS: Rubric-Based Reinforcement Learning for Agent Safety
arXiv · Jun 5, 2026
Import AI 464: Fables writes GPU kernels; AI automation; and analog computation
Import AI · Jul 6, 2026