Pith sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

Organizing self-improvement into epochs with fixed intra-epoch evaluation lets the utility evolve across epochs while preserving per-epoch guarantees.

2026-06-30 09:27 UTC pith:TT5KXQQU

load-bearing objection RQGM adds an epoch structure for co-evolving agents and evaluators but gives no formal argument that the per-epoch invariants survive utility changes. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.26294 v2 pith:TT5KXQQU submitted 2026-06-24 cs.LG cs.AIcs.MAcs.NE

The Red Queen G\"odel Machine: Co-Evolving Agents and Their Evaluators

Alex Iacob , Andrej Jovanovi\'c , William F. Shen , Daniel Burkhardt , Meghdad Kurmanji , Nurbek Tastan , Lorenzo Sani , Niccol\`o Alberto Elia Venanzi
show 5 more authors
Ambroise Odonnat Zeyu Cao Bill Marino Xinchi Qiu Nicholas D. Lane
This is my paper
classification cs.LG cs.AIcs.MAcs.NE
keywords self-improving agentsevolutionary algorithmsagent evaluationnon-stationary utilitiescode generationpaper reviewingrecursive self-improvementadversarial objectives
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents an evolutionary framework that structures recursive self-improvement as a sequence of epochs. Within each epoch the evaluation criterion stays fixed so that improvement guarantees can be maintained, but the utility itself can be updated at epoch boundaries. This setup makes it possible to co-evolve agents together with their evaluators under changing objectives instead of relying on a stationary benchmark or verifier. Experiments on coding tasks, scientific paper writing and reviewing, and Olympiad proof grading show concrete gains over prior self-improving agents that use fixed evaluators.

Core claim

The central claim is that controlled utility evolution across epochs enables co-evolution of agents and evaluators: search proceeds with a stationary criterion inside each epoch so self-improvement properties hold locally, while the objective can shift at boundaries to reflect new or adversarial evaluation signals. On coding benchmarks this yields higher test pass rates with 1.35x-1.72x fewer tokens; on paper writing it produces 1.78x-1.86x higher acceptance under agent judges; on reviewing it finds graders that treat AI and human work with equal stringency, correcting the baseline tendency to over-accept AI papers at up to 1.91 times the human rate.

What carries the argument

Epoch structure with fixed within-epoch evaluation criterion and utility updates only at epoch boundaries, which keeps local improvement guarantees intact while allowing the overall objective to adapt.

Load-bearing premise

That breaking the search into epochs with a fixed evaluation inside each one is sufficient to keep self-improvement guarantees valid even when the utility changes between epochs.

What would settle it

Run the same agent population on a coding benchmark but allow the evaluator to change continuously without discrete epoch boundaries and check whether the reported gains in pass rate and token efficiency disappear.

If this is right

  • Adding a complementary agent-as-a-judge code-review signal raises test pass rate on coding tasks while reducing token consumption by 1.35x-1.72x.
  • Co-evolved writers achieve 1.78x-1.86x higher acceptance rates when evaluated by a diverse panel of agent judges.
  • Co-evolved graders obtain 9 percent higher accuracy against ground-truth labels on Olympiad-level proofs.
  • An adversarial objective can discover reviewers that apply equal stringency to AI-generated and human papers, eliminating the baseline over-acceptance of AI work.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If epoch boundaries can be chosen automatically, the same structure might support long-running self-improvement loops whose objectives drift gradually rather than in discrete jumps.
  • The approach could be tested in domains where evaluation criteria shift with new data, such as ongoing scientific literature review or open-ended creative generation.
  • A direct comparison between discrete-epoch and continuous utility evolution on the same task would clarify whether the epoch constraint is necessary for stability.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Red Queen Gödel Machine (RQGM), an evolutionary framework for recursive self-improvement under non-stationary utilities. Search is organized into epochs with fixed within-epoch evaluation criteria while utilities update at epoch boundaries, purportedly preserving self-improvement guarantees per epoch. Empirical claims include improved test pass rates on coding benchmarks (with 1.35x-1.72x fewer tokens via an agent-as-judge code-review signal), 1.78x-1.86x higher acceptance rates for co-evolved writers under diverse agent-as-judge panels, 9% higher ground-truth accuracy for co-evolved graders, and correction of over-acceptance bias in paper reviewing via an adversarial objective.

Significance. If the per-epoch separation between fixed evaluation and evolving utilities can be shown to hold without leakage, the framework would meaningfully extend self-improving agents beyond stationary benchmarks to domains with co-evolving evaluators and adversarial objectives. The reported token efficiency and multi-domain empirical gains (coding, paper writing/reviewing, Olympiad proofs) would be practically relevant if supported by detailed controls and reproducibility artifacts.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (framework description): The central claim that 'self-improvement guarantees hold per epoch as the objective evolves across them' is load-bearing for the non-stationary utility mechanism, yet no formal argument, invariant, proof sketch, or verification is provided. Without this, it is unclear whether evaluator co-evolution preserves the intended separation or leaks information across epoch boundaries, directly affecting both the theoretical framing and interpretation of the reported gains.
  2. [§5] §5 (paper reviewing experiments): The agent-as-judge mechanism is used both to drive co-evolution (improvement signal) and to measure acceptance rates (evaluation), with the strongest baseline over-accepting AI papers at 1.91x the human rate. No explicit controls or ablation for how the co-evolved panel's distribution affects the reported 1.78x-1.86x gains are described, raising a circularity risk that undermines the claim of correcting bias via the adversarial objective.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Results] Results sections should include exact baselines, error bars, statistical tests, and token counts for all quantitative claims (e.g., the 1.35x-1.72x token reduction and 9% grader accuracy improvement) to allow assessment of reproducibility.
  2. [Introduction] Notation for 'agent-as-a-judge' and 'Red Queen' dynamics should be defined consistently on first use and distinguished from prior self-improvement literature.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight important areas for strengthening the theoretical and empirical aspects of our work. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (framework description): The central claim that 'self-improvement guarantees hold per epoch as the objective evolves across them' is load-bearing for the non-stationary utility mechanism, yet no formal argument, invariant, proof sketch, or verification is provided. Without this, it is unclear whether evaluator co-evolution preserves the intended separation or leaks information across epoch boundaries, directly affecting both the theoretical framing and interpretation of the reported gains.

    Authors: We agree that a formal argument is necessary to support the claim that self-improvement guarantees hold per epoch. The manuscript currently relies on the epoch structure to separate fixed evaluation from evolving utilities but does not provide a proof sketch. In the revised version, we will add a formal argument showing that the search process within each epoch operates under a stationary objective, thereby preserving any base self-improvement properties, while allowing utility updates only at boundaries. We will also analyze potential information leakage and argue why the design prevents it. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5] §5 (paper reviewing experiments): The agent-as-judge mechanism is used both to drive co-evolution (improvement signal) and to measure acceptance rates (evaluation), with the strongest baseline over-accepting AI papers at 1.91x the human rate. No explicit controls or ablation for how the co-evolved panel's distribution affects the reported 1.78x-1.86x gains are described, raising a circularity risk that undermines the claim of correcting bias via the adversarial objective.

    Authors: This is a valid point regarding potential circularity. Although the adversarial objective aims to enforce equal stringency, we did not provide ablations separating the effects of panel co-evolution from the adversarial training. We will revise the manuscript to include such controls, for example by comparing against fixed diverse panels and ablating the adversarial component, to more rigorously demonstrate the bias correction. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; framework defined by design choice with empirical results.

full rationale

The paper presents the RQGM as an evolutionary framework that organizes search into epochs with fixed within-epoch evaluation criteria, allowing utility updates at boundaries so that self-improvement guarantees hold per epoch. This is introduced as an enabling design principle for non-stationary utilities rather than a result derived from equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations. Reported gains (test pass rates, acceptance rates, grader accuracy) are empirical comparisons to baselines, with no quoted reduction showing a prediction equivalent to its input by construction or a load-bearing self-citation chain. The agent-as-a-judge signal is described as complementary and cheaper, without evidence of it being used tautologically for both training and measurement in a self-referential loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The framework rests on the epoch separation of fixed and evolving utilities as a domain assumption introduced to preserve per-epoch guarantees; no free parameters or invented entities beyond the RQGM framework itself are detailed in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Self-improvement guarantees hold per epoch under fixed within-epoch evaluation even as utility evolves across epochs
    Directly stated in the abstract as the mechanism enabling the approach.
invented entities (1)
  • Red Queen Gödel Machine (RQGM) no independent evidence
    purpose: Evolutionary framework for recursive self-improvement under non-stationary utilities
    Newly named and described in the abstract; no independent evidence provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5939 in / 1475 out tokens · 40075 ms · 2026-06-30T09:27:19.148916+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Self-improving agents are state-of-the-art (SOTA) on agentic coding benchmarks and have recently been extended to general domains. However, their search methods generally assume a stationary evaluation criterion: a fixed verifier, benchmark, or labeled dataset that remains valid as the agent improves. This ignores a central feature of evolution: species adapt as their environments change with them. We aim to bring the same principle to recursive self-improvement, making evaluation part of the improvement loop and opening search to evolving evaluators, adversarial objectives, and dynamic utilities that may surpass static benchmarks. We introduce the Red Queen Godel Machine (RQGM), an evolutionary framework for recursive self-improvement under non-stationary utilities. The RQGM makes this possible through controlled utility evolution: search is organized into epochs with a fixed within-epoch evaluation criterion, while the utility can be updated at epoch boundaries, so self-improvement guarantees hold per epoch as the objective evolves across them. We begin by showing that even on verifiable coding tasks, the RQGM improves test pass rate over the prior SOTA by adding a complementary agent-as-a-judge code-review signal. This signal is cheaper and the RQGM uses 1.35x-1.72x fewer tokens. We then turn to scientific paper writing and reviewing, and Olympiad-level proof writing and grading, where the RQGM improves performance over prior self-improving agents: co-evolved writers reach 1.78x-1.86x higher acceptance rates under a diverse agent-as-a-judge panel, while co-evolved graders reach 9% higher ground-truth accuracy. In paper reviewing, the strongest baseline reviewer over-accepts AI-generated papers at up to 1.91x the human rate. The RQGM corrects this by introducing an adversarial objective that discovers reviewers equally stringent on AI and human work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.26294 by Alex Iacob, Ambroise Odonnat, Andrej Jovanovi\'c, Bill Marino, Daniel Burkhardt, Lorenzo Sani, Meghdad Kurmanji, Niccol\`o Alberto Elia Venanzi, Nicholas D. Lane, Nurbek Tastan, William F. Shen, Xinchi Qiu, Zeyu Cao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: RQGM exceeds the prior SOTA HGM-H on Polyglot with 1.35×–1.72× fewer search tokens by adding a cheap evolved code reviewer. Left: held-out pass rate vs. search cost; arrows give the tokens RQGM saves to exceed the baseline’s rate, and the heart marks the run’s best agent. Right: best-belief utility during search. At each evaluator replacement (crowned dashed rule), the utility drops as selective erasure di… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: RQGM searches over a multi-agent workspace tree containing both learnable task agents and evaluators. At each step, a node is selected by Thompson sampling over clade metapro￾ductivity and either expanded by a meta-agent or evaluated. Evaluators are scored against a ground￾truth anchor and task agents by their epoch-local frozen evaluator or a fixed benchmark for evaluator￾independent roles. At checkpoints… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evaluator replacements permanently re-rank the archive. Each curve tracks one re￾placement, plotting the Spearman 𝜌 between post- and pre-replacement rankings as evaluations ac￾cumulate: 𝜌 = 1 (dotted) is the unchanged order, 𝜌 = 0 an uncorrelated reordering. Across all three tasks 𝜌 settles well below 1 and never recovers, so the new ordering holds. The no-erasure control (rightmost) stays high (𝜌 ≥ 0.90)… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evaluator replacement preserves the best lineage while re-ranking the remainder. The paper-run archive after an evaluator replacement (radial layout; node color is best-belief utility, size tracks evidence count). The crimson winning lineage survives intact, ending in the crowned-heart winner. Among the top-8 nodes, every prior member is re-ranked (rings mark promotions and churn). Macro view: each replace… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The co-evolved RQGM grader reaches the best IMO-GradingBench accuracy at 3× lower search cost than HGM-H. A ground-truth-anchored slot has one global best-belief winner (the crowned heart), while an evaluator-dependent slot admits only epoch-local winners, scored post￾hoc in the tables. Left: IMO-GradingBench accuracy of selected graders against grading mean absolute error (MAE); the RQGM grader’s global w… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The adversarial RQGM reviewer accepts AI and human papers at similar rates, a cali￾brated accept/reject boundary that drives the strongest writer (Tab. 1); HGM-H reaches higher raw APReS accuracy only by over-accepting AI-generated papers, which leaves its writer weak. Left: APReS accuracy of selected reviewers against acceptance rate; the dashed line marks the dataset’s true accept rate. The RQGM reviewer… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Each domain separates durable anchor evidence from epoch-local evaluator records. Left: fixed ground-truth anchors (solid lines) survive evaluator replacement, while epoch-frozen evaluator-slot records (dashed lines) are local to epoch 𝑗𝑚. Middle: only evaluator-independent an￾chor evidence enters the 𝜖-best-belief evaluator replacement gate. Right: after replacement, anchors remain valid while records fro… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Nemotron 3 Ultra task-agent calls approach the GPT-5.5-only run at ≈13.0× lower search-token cost. On the held-out APReS split, final GPT-5.5 evaluation shows that the Nemotron 3 Ultra-discovered harness ap￾proaches the performance of our GPT-5.5-only harness. Since raw tokens are not directly com￾parable, we report GPT-5.5-price-equivalent blended tokens based on the best available pricing at the time of … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Blended-token cost decomposition of the three headline GPT-5.5 (low) runs into workspace expansion, train-time evaluation, and validation evaluation. D.3.2 Patch surfaces We classify every lineage edge’s patch by the code surface it modifies. Shared surfaces, the task￾agent code and infrastructure used by more than one role, carry 59–90% of accepted patches in every GPT-5.5 run ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Each domain separates durable anchor evidence from epoch-local evaluator records. Left: fixed ground-truth anchors (solid lines) survive evaluator replacement, while epoch-frozen evaluator-slot records (dashed lines) are local to epoch 𝑗𝑚. Middle: only evaluator-independent an￾chor evidence enters the 𝜖-best-belief evaluator replacement gate. Right: after replacement, anchors remain valid while records fro… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Patch surfaces by run, classifying each accepted lineage edge by the code surface it mod￾ifies (task-agent shared, infrastructure, role-specific, meta-agent module, or notes). E What the Co-Evolution Discovered Every evaluator role is a prompt entry in one shared workspace file, so each evaluator’s behavioral history reads directly from its lineage. The initial role prompts are minimal (App. C.5); across e… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Blended-token cost decomposition of the three headline GPT-5.5 (low) runs into workspace expansion, train-time evaluation, and validation evaluation. D.3.2 Patch surfaces We classify every lineage edge’s patch by the code surface it modifies. Shared surfaces, the task￾agent code and infrastructure used by more than one role, carry 59–90% of accepted patches in every GPT-5.5 run ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: What each evaluator replacement keeps versus what it re-ranks, in all three headline domains. Rows are domains (top to bottom: Polyglot, paper, proof); columns are that run’s shown evaluator replacements, each drawing the archive as it stood at that replacement (radial layout, node color is best-belief utility and size is evidence count). Among the top-8 leaderboard nodes at each replacement, navy rings s… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Patch surfaces by run, classifying each accepted lineage edge by the code surface it modifies (task-agent shared, infrastructure, role-specific, meta-agent module, or notes). E What the Co-Evolution Discovered Every evaluator role is a prompt entry in one shared workspace file, so each evaluator’s behavioral history reads directly from its lineage. The initial role prompts are minimal (App. C.5); across e… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: What each evaluator replacement keeps versus what it re-ranks, in all three headline domains. Rows are domains (top to bottom: Polyglot, paper, proof); columns are that run’s shown evaluator replacements, each drawing the archive as it stood at that replacement (radial layout, node color is best-belief utility and size is evidence count). Among the top-8 leaderboard nodes at each replacement, navy rings s… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A survey of 1,250 papers organizes AI self-improvement along two axes—what is improved and loop closure—finding that demonstrated self-improvement strength tracks a verification hierarchy from formal verifiers down to...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A new evolutionary law

    Leigh Van Valen. A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory, 1:1–30, 1973

    1973

  2. [2]

    Darwin Gödel Machine: Open-ended evolution of self-improving agents

    Jenny Zhang, Shengran Hu, Cong Lu, Robert Tjarko Lange, and Jeff Clune. Darwin Gödel Machine: Open-ended evolution of self-improving agents. In ICLR, 2026. URL https:// openreview.net/forum?id=pUpzQZTvGY

    2026

  3. [3]

    Huxley-Gödel Machine: Human-Level Coding Agent Development by an Approximation of the Optimal Self-Improving Machine

    Wenyi Wang, Piotr Piękos, Li Nanbo, Firas Laakom, Yimeng Chen, Mateusz Ostaszewski, Mingchen Zhuge, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Huxley-Gödel Machine: Human-Level Coding Agent Development by an Approximation of the Optimal Self-Improving Machine. In ICLR,

  4. [4]

    URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=T0EiEuhOOL

  5. [5]

    Hyperagents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.19461, 2026

    Jenny Zhang, Bingchen Zhao, Wannan Y ang, Jakob N. Foerster, Jeff Clune, Minqi Jiang, Sam Devlin, and Tatiana Shavrina. HyperAgents. CoRR, abs/2603.19461, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery

    Chris Lu, Cong Lu, Robert Tjarko Lange, Jakob N. Foerster, Jeff Clune, and David Ha. The AI scientist: Towards fully automated open-ended scientific discovery. CoRR, abs/2408.06292, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    The AI Scientist-v2: Workshop-Level Automated Scientific Discovery via Agentic Tree Search

    Yutaro Y amada, Robert Tjarko Lange, Cong Lu, Shengran Hu, Chris Lu, Jakob N. Foerster, Jeff Clune, and David Ha. The AI scientist-v2: Workshop-level automated scientific discovery via agentic tree search. CoRR, abs/2504.08066, 2025. 13

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Thang Luong, Dawsen Hwang, Hoang H. Nguyen, Golnaz Ghiasi, Yuri Chervonyi, Insuk Seo, Junsu Kim, Garrett Bingham, Jonathan Lee, Swaroop Mishra, Alex Zhai, Clara Huiyi Hu, Hen- ryk Michalewski, Jimin Kim, Jeonghyun Ahn, Junhwi Bae, Xingyou Song, Trieu H. Trinh, Quoc V . Le, and Junehyuk Jung. Towards robust mathematical reasoning. In EMNLP, pages 35418–354...

    2025

  9. [9]

    Learning hand- eye coordination for robotic grasping with deep learning and large-scale data collection

    Sergey Levine, Peter Pastor, Alex Krizhevsky, Julian Ibarz, and Deirdre Quillen. Learning hand- eye coordination for robotic grasping with deep learning and large-scale data collection. Int. J. Robotics Res., 37(4-5):421–436, 2018

    2018

  10. [10]

    Maffettone, Vladimir V

    Benjamin Burger, Phillip M. Maffettone, Vladimir V . Gusev, Catherine M. Aitchison, Y ang Bai, Xiaoyan Wang, Xiaobo Li, Ben M. Alston, Buyi Li, Rob Clowes, Nicola Rankin, Brandon Harris, Reiner Sebastian Sprick, and Andrew I. Cooper. A mobile robotic chemist. Nature, 583 (7815):237–241, 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2442-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2442-2 2020

  11. [11]

    Hind- sight experience replay

    Marcin Andrychowicz, Filip Wolski, Alex Ray, Jonas Schneider, Rachel Fong, Peter Welin- der, Bob McGrew, Josh Tobin, OpenAI Pieter Abbeel, and Wojciech Zaremba. Hind- sight experience replay. In I. Guyon, U. Von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fer- gus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, editors, NeurIPS, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc.,

  12. [12]

    URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/ 2017/file/453fadbd8a1a3af50a9df4df899537b5-Paper.pdf

    2017

  13. [13]

    Self-improvement of large language models: A technical overview and future outlook

    Haoyan Y ang, Mario Xerri, Solha Park, Huajian Zhang, Yiyang Feng, Sai Akhil Kogilathota, and Jiawei Zhou. Self-improvement of large language models: A technical overview and future outlook. CoRR, abs/2603.25681, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    Map- ping global dynamics of benchmark creation and saturation in artificial intelligence

    Adriano Barbosa-Silva, Simon Ott, Kathrin Blagec, Jan Brauner, and Matthias Samwald. Map- ping global dynamics of benchmark creation and saturation in artificial intelligence. CoRR, abs/2203.04592, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    o1 tops aider’s new polyglot leaderboard.https://aider.chat/2024/ 12/21/polyglot.html, December 2024

    Paul Gauthier. o1 tops aider’s new polyglot leaderboard.https://aider.chat/2024/ 12/21/polyglot.html, December 2024. Accessed: 2026-01-28

    2024

  16. [16]

    Towards end-to-end automation of AI research

    Chris Lu, Cong Lu, Robert Tjarko Lange, Yutaro Y amada, Shengran Hu, Jakob Foerster, David Ha, and Jeff Clune. Towards end-to-end automation of AI research. Nature, 651(8107):914– 919, 2026

    2026

  17. [17]

    APReS: an agentic paper revision and evaluation system

    Bingchen Zhao, Jenny Zhang, Chenxi Whitehouse, Minqi Jiang, Michael Shvartsman, Ab- hishek Charnalia, Despoina Magka, Tatiana Shavrina, Derek Dunfield, Oisin Mac Aodha, and Y oram Bachrach. APReS: an agentic paper revision and evaluation system. CoRR, abs/2603.03142, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    Bowman, and Shi Feng

    Arjun Panickssery, Samuel R. Bowman, and Shi Feng. LLM evaluators recognize and favor their own generations. In NeurIPS, 2024

    2024

  19. [19]

    Speculations concerning the first ultraintelligent machine

    Irving John Good. Speculations concerning the first ultraintelligent machine. Adv. Comput., 6: 31–88, 1965

    1965

  20. [20]

    Goedel Machines: Self-Referential Universal Problem Solvers Making Provably Optimal Self-Improvements.CoRR, cs.LO/0309048, 2003

    Jürgen Schmidhuber. Gödel machines: Self-referential universal problem solvers making prov- ably optimal self-improvements. CoRR, cs.LO/0309048, 2003

    work page arXiv 2003

  21. [21]

    Eliminating meta optimization through self-referential meta learning

    Louis Kirsch and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Eliminating meta optimization through self-referential meta learning. CoRR, abs/2212.14392, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Foerster

    Chris Lu, Sebastian Towers, and Jakob N. Foerster. Arbitrary order meta-learning with simple population-based evolution. CoRR, abs/2303.09478, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Live-swe-agent: Can software engineering agents self-evolve on the fly?, 2025

    Chunqiu Steven Xia, Zhe Wang, Y an Y ang, Yuxiang Wei, and Lingming Zhang. Live-SWE- agent: Can software engineering agents self-evolve on the fly? CoRR, abs/2511.13646, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Self-taught optimizer (STOP): recursively self-improving code generation

    Eric Zelikman, Eliana Lorch, Lester Mackey, and Adam Tauman Kalai. Self-taught optimizer (STOP): recursively self-improving code generation. CoRR, abs/2310.02304, 2023. 14

    work page arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Gödel agent: A self-referential agent framework for recursively self-improvement

    Xunjian Yin, Xinyi Wang, Liangming Pan, Li Lin, Xiaojun Wan, and William Y ang Wang. Gödel agent: A self-referential agent framework for recursively self-improvement. In ACL (1), pages 27890–27913. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2025

    2025

  26. [26]

    Promptbreeder: Self-referential self-improvement via prompt evolution

    Chrisantha Fernando, Dylan Banarse, Henryk Michalewski, Simon Osindero, and Tim Rock- täschel. Promptbreeder: Self-referential self-improvement via prompt evolution. In ICML, vol- ume 235 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 13481–13544. PMLR / Open- Review.net, 2024

    2024

  27. [27]

    Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah D. Goodman. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. In NeurIPS, 2022

    2022

  28. [28]

    Shen, Alex Iacob, Zichen Zhang, Daoheng Wang, Wenyi Wang, Rui Liang, Yulong Zhang, Xinchi Qiu, and Nicholas D

    William F. Shen, Alex Iacob, Zichen Zhang, Daoheng Wang, Wenyi Wang, Rui Liang, Yulong Zhang, Xinchi Qiu, and Nicholas D. Lane. Star analyst: Self-tuning alpha research. SSRN preprint, 2026. Available at SSRN: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6823940

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.6823940 2026

  29. [29]

    A self-improving coding agent

    Maxime Robeyns, Martin Szummer, and Laurence Aitchison. A self-improving coding agent. CoRR, abs/2504.15228, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Joar Skalse, Nikolaus H. R. Howe, Dmitrii Krasheninnikov, and David Krueger. Defining and characterizing reward gaming. In NeurIPS, 2022

    2022

  31. [31]

    Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Y onghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric P . Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. Judging LLM-as-a-judge with MT-bench and chatbot arena. In NeurIPS, 2023

    2023

  32. [32]

    Length-controlled AlpacaEval: A simple debiasing of automatic evaluators

    Y ann Dubois, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. Length-controlled AlpacaEval: A simple debiasing of automatic evaluators. In First Conference on Language Modeling , 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=CybBmzWBX0

    2024

  33. [33]

    Ashley, Wenyi Wang, Dmitrii Khizbullin, Yunyang Xiong, Zechun Liu, Ernie Chang, Raghuraman Krishnamoorthi, Yuandong Tian, Y angyang Shi, Vikas Chandra, and Jürgen Schmidhuber

    Mingchen Zhuge, Changsheng Zhao, Dylan R. Ashley, Wenyi Wang, Dmitrii Khizbullin, Yunyang Xiong, Zechun Liu, Ernie Chang, Raghuraman Krishnamoorthi, Yuandong Tian, Y angyang Shi, Vikas Chandra, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Agent-as-a-judge: Evaluate agents with agents. In ICML, volume 267 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research . PMLR / OpenReview.net, 2025

    2025

  34. [34]

    Accelerating scientific discovery with Co-Scientist

    Juraj Gottweis, Wei-Hung Weng, Alexander Daryin, Tao Tu, Petar Sirkovic, Artiom Myaskovsky, Grzegorz Glowaty, Felix Weissenberger, Alessio Orlandi, Dan Popovici, et al. Accelerating scientific discovery with Co-Scientist. Nature, pages 1–3, 2026

    2026

  35. [35]

    A multi-agent system for automating scientific discovery

    Ali Essam Ghareeb, Benjamin Chang, Ludovico Mitchener, Angela Yiu, Caralyn J Szostkiewicz, Dmytro Shved, Gavin J Gyimesi, Jon M Laurent, Samantha M Wright, Muhammed T Razzak, et al. A multi-agent system for automating scientific discovery. Na- ture, pages 1–3, 2026

    2026

  36. [36]

    Alexander Novikov, Ngân Vu, Marvin Eisenberger, Emilien Dupont, Po-Sen Huang, Adam Zsolt Wagner, Sergey Shirobokov, Borislav Kozlovskii, Francisco J. R. Ruiz, Abbas Mehrabian, M. Pawan Kumar, Abigail See, Swarat Chaudhuri, George Holland, Alex Davies, Sebastian Nowozin, Pushmeet Kohli, and Matej Balog. AlphaEvolve: A coding agent for sci- entific and algo...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Pawan Kumar, Emilien Dupont, Francisco J

    Bernardino Romera-Paredes, Mohammadamin Barekatain, Alexander Novikov, Matej Balog, M. Pawan Kumar, Emilien Dupont, Francisco J. R. Ruiz, Jordan S. Ellenberg, Pengming Wang, Omar Fawzi, Pushmeet Kohli, and Alhussein Fawzi. Mathematical discoveries from program search with large language models. Nature, 625(7995):468–475, 2024

    2024

  38. [38]

    Rosin and Richard K

    Christopher D. Rosin and Richard K. Belew. New methods for competitive coevolution. Evol. Comput., 5(1):1–29, 1997

    1997

  39. [39]

    Multi-agent learning with the success-story algorithm

    Jürgen Schmidhuber and Jieyu Zhao. Multi-agent learning with the success-story algorithm. In ECAI Workshop LDAIS / ICMAS Workshop LIOME, volume 1221 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 82–93. Springer, 1996. 15

    1996

  40. [40]

    Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search

    David Silver, Aja Huang, Chris J Maddison, Arthur Guez, Laurent Sifre, George Van Den Driessche, Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Veda Panneershelvam, Marc Lanctot, et al. Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature, 529(7587): 484–489, 2016

    2016

  41. [41]

    URLhttps://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aar6404

    David Silver, Thomas Hubert, Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Matthew Lai, Arthur Guez, Marc Lanctot, Laurent Sifre, Dharshan Kumaran, Thore Graepel, Timothy Lillicrap, Karen Simonyan, and Demis Hassabis. A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, shogi, and Go through self-play. Science, 362(6419):1140–1144, 2018. doi: 10.112...

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aar6404 2018

  42. [42]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.23595 , year=

    Yixing Chen, Yiding Wang, Siqi Zhu, Haofei Yu, Tao Feng, Muhan Zhang, Mostofa Pat- wary, and Jiaxuan Y ou. Multi-agent evolve: LLM self-improve through co-evolution. CoRR, abs/2510.23595, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Group-evolving agents: Open-ended self-improvement via experience sharing, 2026

    Zhaotian Weng, Antonis Antoniades, Deepak Nathani, Zhen Zhang, Xiao Pu, and Xin Eric Wang. Group-evolving agents: Open-ended self-improvement via experience sharing. CoRR, abs/2602.04837, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    Ai & human co-improvement for safer co-superintelligence

    Jason Weston and Jakob N. Foerster. AI & human co-improvement for safer co- superintelligence. CoRR, abs/2512.05356, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Stanley, Joel Lehman, and Lisa Soros

    Kenneth O. Stanley, Joel Lehman, and Lisa Soros. Open-endedness: The last grand challenge you’ve never heard of. O’Reilly Radar (online arti- cle), December 2017. URL https://www.oreilly.com/radar/ open-endedness-the-last-grand-challenge-youve-never-heard-of/ . Accessed 2026-06-16

    2017

  46. [46]

    Dennis, Jack Parker-Holder, Feryal M

    Edward Hughes, Michael D. Dennis, Jack Parker-Holder, Feryal M. P . Behbahani, Aditi Mavalankar, Yuge Shi, Tom Schaul, and Tim Rocktäschel. Position: Open-endedness is es- sential for artificial superhuman intelligence. In ICML, volume 235 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 20597–20616. PMLR / OpenReview.net, 2024

    2024

  47. [47]

    Illuminating search spaces by mapping elites

    Jean-Baptiste Mouret and Jeff Clune. Illuminating search spaces by mapping elites. CoRR, abs/1504.04909, 2015

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  48. [48]

    Go-explore: a new approach for hard-exploration problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.10995, 2019

    Adrien Ecoffet, Joost Huizinga, Joel Lehman, Kenneth O. Stanley, and Jeff Clune. Go-explore: a new approach for hard-exploration problems. CoRR, abs/1901.10995, 2019

    work page arXiv 1901

  49. [49]

    Automated design of agentic systems

    Shengran Hu, Cong Lu, and Jeff Clune. Automated design of agentic systems. In ICLR. Open- Review.net, 2025

    2025

  50. [50]

    Ai-gas: Ai-generating algorithms, an alternate paradigm for producing general arti- ficial intelligence

    Jeff Clune. Ai-gas: Ai-generating algorithms, an alternate paradigm for producing general arti- ficial intelligence. CoRR, abs/1905.10985, 2019

    work page arXiv 1905

  51. [51]

    Algorithms for infinitely many-armed bandits

    Yizao Wang, Jean-yves Audibert, and Rémi Munos. Algorithms for infinitely many-armed bandits. In D. Koller, D. Schuurmans, Y . Bengio, and L. Bottou, editors, NeurIPS, volume 21, pages 1729–1736. Curran Associates, Inc., 2008

    2008

  52. [52]

    CRA VE: Code Review Agent Verdict Evaluation

    Li Zhang. CRA VE: Code Review Agent Verdict Evaluation. Hugging Face dataset,

  53. [53]

    Code review classification dataset from curated human code reviews

    URL https://huggingface.co/datasets/TuringEnterprises/ CRAVE. Code review classification dataset from curated human code reviews

  54. [54]

    Jimenez, John Y ang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Y ao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik R

    Carlos E. Jimenez, John Y ang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Y ao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik R. Narasimhan. SWE-bench: Can language models resolve real-world GitHub issues? In ICLR. OpenReview.net, 2024

    2024

  55. [55]

    Yichen Huang and Lin F. Y ang. Gemini 2.5 pro capable of winning gold at IMO 2025. CoRR, abs/2507.15855, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Api pricing

    OpenAI. Api pricing. https://openai.com/api/pricing/, 2026

    2026

  57. [57]

    Anthropic. Pricing. https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/ about-claude/pricing, 2026. 16

    2026

  58. [58]

    Our First Proof Submissions

    OpenAI. Our First Proof Submissions. https://openai.com/index/ first-proof-submissions/ , 2025. Gold-medal-level performance at the In- ternational Mathematical Olympiad 2025

    2025

  59. [59]

    Spears, Derya Unutmaz, Kevin Weil, Steven Yin, and Nikita Zhivotovskiy

    Sébastien Bubeck, Christian Coester, Ronen Eldan, Timothy Gowers, Yin Tat Lee, Alexandru Lupsasca, Mehtaab Sawhney, Robert Scherrer, Mark Sellke, Brian K. Spears, Derya Unutmaz, Kevin Weil, Steven Yin, and Nikita Zhivotovskiy. Early science acceleration experiments with GPT-5. CoRR, abs/2511.16072, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Models

    Jeffrey Zhou, Tianjian Lu, Swaroop Mishra, Siddhartha Brahma, Sujoy Basu, Yi Luan, Denny Zhou, and Le Hou. Instruction-following evaluation for large language models. CoRR, abs/2311.07911, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    BadScientist: Can a Research Agent Write Convincing but Unsound Papers that Fool LLM Reviewers?

    Fengqing Jiang, Yichen Feng, Yuetai Li, Luyao Niu, Basel Alomair, and Radha Poovendran. BadScientist: Can a research agent write convincing but unsound papers that fool LLM review- ers? CoRR, abs/2510.18003, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Nemotron 3 ultra: Open, efficient mixture-of-experts hybrid mamba-transformer model for agentic reasoning

    NVIDIA. Nemotron 3 ultra: Open, efficient mixture-of-experts hybrid mamba-transformer model for agentic reasoning. CoRR, abs/2606.15007, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  63. [63]

    Nemotron 3 Super: Open, Efficient Mixture-of-Experts Hybrid Mamba-Transformer Model for Agentic Reasoning

    NVIDIA. Nemotron 3 super: Open, efficient mixture-of-experts hybrid mamba-transformer model for agentic reasoning. CoRR, abs/2604.12374, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  64. [64]

    node_modules

    DeepInfra. Pricing. https://deepinfra.com/, 2026. 17 Table of Contents A Appendix Overview 18 B The Algorithm in Full 18 C Experimental Setup 19 C.1 Domains and Anchor pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 C.2 Models and Run Identities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 C.3 Search and Scheduling Setti...

    2026