跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2610.36774 · v1

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

首次提交 2026-10-27 15:41
版本更新 2026-10-27 15:41
雷达观测 2026-10-29 00:35
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

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.

作者备注:NeurIPS 2026 Workshop on Resource-Aware Agentic AI. 9 pages, 7 figures. First four authors contributed equally. Code: https://github.com/gepa-ai/gepa

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-10-27 15:41 · 最新观测版本

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

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.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗