We introduce CodeEvolve, an open-source framework that couples large language models with island-based evolutionary search for end-to-end algorithmic discovery. CodeEvolve integrates inspiration-based crossover, meta-prompting, and depth-based refinement on top of a CVT-MAP-Elites archive and a weighted LLM ensemble to generate optimized solutions for complex problems. On the AlphaEvolve benchmark suite, CodeEvolve matches or surpasses the reported AlphaEvolve results on 5 of 9 problems and, under matched conditions, outperforms the open-source frameworks OpenEvolve and ShinkaEvolve on 6 of 9. With the open-weight Qwen3-Coder-30B backbone, it surpasses the reported AlphaEvolve score on both CirclePackingSquare instances at roughly an order of magnitude lower cost than a frontier closed-source ensemble, and remains competitive with EoH on heuristic-design tasks without retuning. Ablations show that the interaction between CodeEvolve’s components, rather than any single operator, drives these results. We release the framework, experimental data, and practical hyperparameter guidelines at https://github.com/inter-co/science-codeevolve.

Trustworthy biomedical question answering (QA) systems must not only provide accurate answers but also justify them with current, verifiable evidence. Retrieval-augmented approaches partially address this gap but lack mechanisms to iteratively refine poor queries, whereas self-reflection methods kick in only after full retrieval is completed. In this context, we introduce PubMed Reasoner, a biomedical QA agent composed of three stages: self-critic query refinement evaluates MeSH terms for coverage, alignment, and redundancy to enhance PubMed queries based on partial (metadata) retrieval; reflective retrieval processes articles in batches until sufficient evidence is gathered; and evidence-grounded response generation produces answers with explicit citations. PubMed Reasoner with a GPT-4o backbone achieves 78.32% accuracy on PubMedQA, slightly surpassing human experts, and showing consistent gains on MMLU Clinical Knowledge. Moreover, LLM-as-judge evaluations prefer our responses across: reasoning soundness, evidence grounding, clinical relevance, and trustworthiness. By orchestrating retrieval-first reasoning over authoritative sources, our approach provides practical assistance to clinicians and biomedical researchers while controlling compute and token costs.