Figure 1: Positioning ReASearch relative to existing methods.
Table 1: Performance on test sets before and after system prompt optimization.
AIME ↑
GSM8K ↑
HotpotQA ↑
Terminal-Bench 2.0 ↑
Baseline
46.00 ± 1.33
81.20 ± 0.38
63.00 ± 1.50
35.56 ± 1.48
GEPA
50.67 ± 1.15
82.11 ± 0.45
65.80 ± 0.80
42.22 ± 1.28
ReASearch
52.00 ± 0.67
83.40 ± 0.30
67.60 ± 0.50
53.33 ± 1.96
Figure 2: Prior methods use LLMs primarily as mutators, with candidate selection and optimization goals determined by external heuristic algorithms. In contrast, ReASearch exposes the entire optimization process through tools, giving the agent full control over the search procedure and enabling it to solve a wide range of tasks.
Table 2: Circle Packing Results
Algorithm
Model
n=23 ↑
n=24 ↑
n=25 ↑
n=26 ↑
n=27 ↑
n=28 ↑
n=29 ↑
n=30 ↑
n=31 ↑
n=32 ↑
Best known (human)
2.478
2.530
2.587
2.635
2.685
2.737
2.790
2.842
2.889
2.939
AdaEvolve
GPT-5
2.406
2.528
2.569
2.610
2.654
2.641
2.659
2.750
2.781
2.707
Sonnet 4.6
2.478
2.433
2.587
2.630
2.576
2.623
2.786
2.843
2.887
2.810
ReASearch
GPT-5
2.471
2.528
2.572
2.623
2.683
2.687
2.779
2.780
2.683
2.938
Sonnet 4.6
2.478
2.530
2.587
2.636
2.684
2.735
2.790
2.843
2.890
2.940
Figure 3: We visualize an example agent trajectory for prompt optimization, highlighting automatic verification and final prompt selection. None of this process is hardcoded; it emerges from the guiding instruction, with agents freely deciding each next step.
Table 3: Heilbronn Triangle Results
Algorithm
Model
n=11 ↑
n=12 ↑
n=13 ↑
n=14 ↑
n=15 ↑
Best known (human)
0.03704
0.03260
0.02702
0.02430
0.02111
AdaEvolve
GPT-5
0.02923
0.03100
0.02229
0.01606
0.01770
Sonnet 4.6
0.02629
0.02552
0.02142
0.00299
0.00984
ReASearch
GPT-5
0.03539
0.03142
0.02466
0.02260
0.01903
Sonnet 4.6
0.03552
0.03260
0.02700
0.02429
0.02034
Figure 4: Program evolution and ML workflow optimization exhibit similar patterns: the agent actively uses Python for reasoning and small-scale experiments before running expensive evaluations, while delegating targeted code edits to a separate agent to keep the main agent’s context clean.
Table 4: Systems Programming Results (TXN and EPLB)
Algorithm
Model
TXN ↑
EPLB ↑
GEPA
GPT-5
3984
0.1445
Shinka
GPT-5
4329
0.1272
AdaEvolve
GPT-5
3636
0.1976
Sonnet 4.6
4292
0.1441
ReASearch
GPT-5
4237
0.2305
Sonnet 4.6
4032
0.1471
Figure 5: Tool call frequency statistics for each category.
Table 6: Model training tasks.
Method
NanoGPT ↓
IMG-100 ↑
Atari (Q*bert) ↑
MuJoCo ↑
Crypto ↑
Baseline
0.998 ± 0.006
63.51 ± 0.85
475 ± 90
1537 ± 220
0.0953 ± 0.0021 (rank 36)
Claude Code
0.974 ± 0.010
78.59 ± 1.40
1250 ± 180
3986 ± 410
0.0999 ± 0.0028 (rank 29)
ReASearch
0.976 ± 0.008
83.99 ± 1.10
4500 ± 320
5267 ± 480
0.1110 ± 0.0024 (rank 6)
Figure 6: Comparison with GEPA on Terminal-Bench validation accuracy.
Table 7: Component ablation on prompt optimization.
Method
AIME ↑
Terminal-Bench 2.0 ↑
Baseline
46.00
35.56
GEPA
50.67
42.22
ReASearch
52.00
53.33
ReASearch w/o memory
49.33
48.15
ReASearch w/o Python tools
51.33
51.11
Figure 7: Performance and token usage across experiments. For Claude Code, token usage is only available at the end of the optimization run, so we plot it as a linear trajectory.
Table 8: Component ablation on ARC-AGI-2 program evolution.
Method
Train acc ↑
Test acc ↑
AdaEvolve
21.9%
12.5%
ReASearch
85.0%
50.0%
ReASearch w/o memory
60.0%
39.2%
ReASearch w/o Python tools
51.67%
32.5%
Table 9: Open-source backbones on prompt optimization. The AIME and HotpotQA rows for the baseline and ReASearch w/ Claude Sonnet 4.6 match Table 1; the Terminal-Bench 2.0 column here uses GPT-OSS-120B as the student model (rather than GPT-5), so its values differ from Table 1 and are not directly comparable. GLM-5 and Kimi-2.5 are added.
Method
AIME ↑
HotpotQA ↑
Terminal-Bench 2.0 ↑
Baseline
46.00 ± 1.33
63.00 ± 1.50
3.00 ± 0.74
GEPA
50.67 ± 1.15
65.80 ± 0.80
—
ReASearch w/ Claude Sonnet 4.6
52.00 ± 0.67
67.60 ± 0.50
23.00 ± 2.27
ReASearch w/ GLM-5
51.33 ± 1.15
67.20 ± 0.90
14.81 ± 4.07
ReASearch w/ Kimi-2.5
50.67 ± 0.94
66.80 ± 1.00
8.15 ± 3.39
Table 10: Open-source backbones on ML workflow optimization. The baseline and ReASearch w/ Claude rows match Table 6; GLM-5 and Kimi-2.5 are added.
Method
NanoGPT ↓
IMG-100 ↑
Atari (Q*bert) ↑
MuJoCo ↑
Crypto ↑
Baseline
0.998 ± 0.006
63.51 ± 0.85
475 ± 90
1537 ± 220
0.0953 ± 0.0021
ReASearch w/ Claude
0.976 ± 0.008
83.99 ± 1.10
4500 ± 320
5267 ± 480
0.1110 ± 0.0024
ReASearch w/ GLM-5
0.979 ± 0.009
82.80 ± 1.25
4100 ± 380
4920 ± 510
0.1085 ± 0.0030
ReASearch w/ Kimi-2.5
0.981 ± 0.010
82.10 ± 1.35
3900 ± 420
4740 ± 540
0.1076 ± 0.0033
Table 11: Component ablation on Heilbronn triangle program evolution. The objective is the minimum triangle area; higher is better.
Recent systems for optimizing prompts, programs, and ML workflows typically rely on explicit outer-loop controllers such as evolutionary search, bandits, or textual-gradient methods. We ask a fundamentally different question: how much of this search policy can be internalized by a single tool-using agent? We present ReASearch, a unified framework for reasoning-driven optimization in which the agent autonomously decides what to evaluate, how to diagnose failures, which edits to make, and when to verify or restart. Rather than serving only as a proposal generator guided by hand-designed heuristics, the agent actively analyzes outcomes, allocates budget, and refines its strategy over long horizons through persistent memory. With a shared agent loop and domain-specific tools, ReASearch instantiates the exact same scaffold to optimize prompts, programs, and ML workflows. Across 14 diverse tasks, it is competitive with and mostly better than specialized optimization systems, achieving gains of 2% to 40% over strong domain-specific baselines, and in some cases discovering solutions that improve on prior human best-known results. Crucially, we observe that complex search behaviors, which are typically implemented by explicit controllers, emerge naturally from the agent's reasoning process.
