PreprintCited by 0Evolutionary Algorithms and ApplicationsNatural Language Processing TechniquesParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques

Batching the Reflective Optimization Loop: Parallel Proposals Make GEPA Faster and Better

Open access
Zhang, Jialin, Agrawal, Lakshya A, Tan, Shangyin, Lee, Donghyun, Erdogan, Lutfi Eren, Klein, Dan, Sen, Koushik, Dimakis, Alex +1 more·2026·arXiv

Abstract

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 $2\times2$) and from 49.0% to 60.0% on HoVer (with $8\times1$). 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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2610.36774

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Authors
Zhang, J., Agrawal, L. A., Tan, S., Lee, D., Erdogan, L. E., Klein, D., Sen, K., Dimakis, A., & Zaharia, M.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7224106650
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Parallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Keywords
GEPA, parallel evaluation, agentic systems, hover

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review