Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

This survey argues that the scattered field of self-improving foundation-model agents is unified by a single formal mechanism: an agent improves itself by committing self-induced updates either to its model weights or to its operational sca

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 06:28 UTC pith:5IM45ZWO

load-bearing objection A useful organizing framework for a fragmented field, held back by an inconsistently applied boundary between transient adaptation and durable self-improvement. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13104 v1 pith:5IM45ZWO submitted 2026-07-14 cs.AI cs.CLcs.LG

Self-Improvements in Modern Agentic Systems: A Survey

Zhe Ren , Yimeng Chen , Dandan Guo , Guowei Rong , Tonghui Li , R. B. Xiong , Qingfeng Lan , Wenyi Wang
show 4 more authors
Li Nanbo Yibo Yang Mingchen Zhuge J\"urgen Schmidhuber
This is my paper
classification cs.AI cs.CLcs.LG
keywords self-improving agentsfoundation modelsagent scaffoldsself-induced updatesprompt optimizationmemory evolutiontaxonomyLLM agents
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 tries to establish that modern self-improving agents are not a scattered set of tricks but one formal pattern. It represents an agent as a configuration of a foundation model plus an operational scaffold, and defines self-improvement as a self-induced update operator that durably changes either the model weights or the scaffold. The survey organizes the literature into two pathways—foundation-model improvement and scaffolding improvement—and three signal families that drive both. If the taxonomy holds, then self-correction, meta-prompting, self-play, and self-evolving agents are all instances of the same mechanism, and lessons from one line of work transfer to the others. The paper's contribution is organizational: it supplies a common vocabulary and a map for a fragmented field, not a new algorithm.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that self-improvement in modern agentic systems is one mechanism, not a grab bag. An agent is a configuration A_t=(θ_t,Σ_t): the foundation-model weights plus a scaffold of prompts, memory, tools, and control logic. Self-improvement is a self-induced update operator U: the agent runs its own policy under a task context, produces a signal (demonstrations, evaluative feedback, or exploratory experience), and commits that signal durably to θ (foundation-model improvement) or Σ (scaffolding improvement). The survey then reads the literature through this two-pathway lens and asserts that labels like self-correction, meta-prompting, self-play, and self-evolving agents

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the self-induced update operator U, written θ_{t+1}=U_θ(θ_{1:t}; E(π_{θt,Σt}; Σt, Ct)) for parameter updates and Σ_{t+1}=U_Σ(Σ_{1:t}; E(...)) for scaffold updates. E is the execution procedure that harvests a learning signal from the agent's own behavior; U is the procedure that commits it. The operator does the work of separating self-improvement from ordinary adaptation: transient execution state X_t does not count, while a committed change to θ or Σ does. Scaffolding improvement is further decomposed by component—prompts, memory, tools, or the whole scaffold—and the paper introduces the notion of a skill as a reusable serialized update that can be stored in any of tho

Load-bearing premise

The survey's whole picture rests on its classification of the cited systems being accurate and on the boundary rule that durable changes to weights or scaffold—not merely improved behavior within a task—define self-improvement; if either premise fails, the unified framework is an artifact of grouping rather than a property of the field.

What would settle it

Audit a sample of the cited systems' code and logs: if a system classified as scaffolding improvement never commits a change that survives past the current task, the classification violates the survey's own definition. The two-pathway claim would also fall if a single system showed cumulative cross-task gains while leaving both θ and Σ unchanged.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the formalization is right, results on prompt optimization transfer directly to memory and tool governance, because all are scaffold updates driven by the same signal family.
  • Benchmarks should measure durable cross-task improvement, not single-episode success, since the definition turns on committed changes to θ or Σ.
  • The taxonomy offers a shared vocabulary for comparing self-correction, meta-prompting, self-play, and self-evolving agents, and for moving safeguards between them.
  • Full-scaffold methods become the practical approximation of recursive self-improvement, bounded by verifiers and human-designed objectives.
  • Hybrid loops become a natural next step: scaffold-level discoveries can later be distilled into weights, connecting the two update equations as stages of one loop.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The durable-update rule implies a testable boundary: a reflection that lives only inside one episode is not self-improving by the survey's own definition, but the same reflection stored and reused across episodes would be.
  • If the two-pathway formalization is correct, the next bottleneck is not new learning algorithms but safe update operators—verification, rollback, and versioning become first-class components.
  • The framework predicts hybrid designs will outperform either pathway alone: scaffold changes are cheap to make and can later be distilled into weights, so the two equations may be two stages of a single loop.
  • A testable extension: benchmark cumulative improvement on held-out tasks after a fixed number of updates; the taxonomy predicts only durable θ or Σ changes show gains, with scaffold-only changes faster but narrower.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper surveys self-improving foundation-model (FM) agents. It represents an agent as a configuration A_t = (θ_t, Σ_t) coupling an FM with an operational scaffold of prompts, memory, tools, and control logic, and formalizes self-improvement as a self-induced update operator U that commits durable changes either to model parameters (Eq. 5) or to the scaffold (Eq. 6), driven by one of three signal types: intrinsic generative demonstrations, intrinsic evaluative feedback, or extrinsic exploratory experience. Roughly 200 works are then organized into two pathways — foundation-model improvement (§5) and scaffolding improvement over prompts, memory, tools, and full scaffolding (§6) — and surveyed across six application domains (§7) with a discussion of evaluation (§8) and open problems (§9). The formalization is internally consistent and the prose matches the mathematics; the survey is also explicit about its own judgment calls and about failure modes of the methods it reviews.

Significance. If the framework holds, it supplies a common vocabulary for a fragmented literature (self-correction, meta-prompting, self-play, self-evolving agents), which would be a genuine service to the field. Strengths to credit: the formalization is clean and internally consistent (Eqs. 1–6); Algorithms 1–2 match the prose; the qualitative tables (Tables 3 and 5) are honestly labeled as literature-grounded assessments rather than benchmark-backed scores; and the survey is self-critical, cataloging concrete failure modes (model collapse and diversity loss in §5.1, calibration dependence in §5.2, reward hacking and hallucinated dynamics in §5.3, critique drift in §6.1). The historical genealogy (§2) is detailed and useful. The paper's claim is organizational rather than empirical, so its value rests on the accuracy, verifiability, and fair application of the taxonomy's boundary rules — which is where the concerns below lie. The framework's practical payoff would be strengthened by one worked comparison showing how the formalism changes a concrete cross-method comparison.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.5 vs. §3.2; §7.1 vs. Table 2] §3.2 defines self-improvement as an operator U that 'commits durable changes' to θ or Σ, excluding transient execution state Xt (key-value caches, in-context examples). Yet §2.5 calls in-context learning 'the most immediate form of self-improvement' via 'transient, context-dependent weight changes' — the very mechanism §3.1 assigns to Xt. The rule is applied selectively: §7.1 excludes SWE-agent/Agentless as non-self-improving baselines because they lack 'persistent cross-interaction updates to θ or Σ,' while Table 2/Fig. 2 list Self-Refine, which §6.1.2 itself calls a 'foundational paradigm' for 'transient output correction.' By the §7.1 criterion Self-Refine should be excluded; by the §2.5 criterion SWE-agent/Agentless should be included. Recommend an explicit within-episode vs. cross-interaction durable horizon in §3.2, applied consistently in Table 2 and §7.1.
  2. [Bibliography and citation base (throughout; e.g., Fig. 3, §§5–7)] The survey's central claim is representational: ~200+ cited works are captured by the two-pathway framework. In the manuscript under review, citations appear only as (Author, Year) with no arXiv IDs/DOIs, and no reference list is present, so I could not verify the existence or attribution of any cited work, many dated 2025–2026. The authors already concede (§5 intro) that subcategory assignment is a judgment call and 'not mutually exclusive.' Because the taxonomy is the deliverable, this is the evidence base. Please supply the complete bibliography with stable identifiers and a supplementary table stating each work's assigned signal (D_t/e_t/τ_t) and update substrate (θ/Σ component) so the classifications can be checked.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5.3.2] The citation 'GLoW (Kim & seung-won hwang, 2026)' has an inconsistently capitalized author name ('Seung-won Hwang'); please also confirm the year and venue.
  2. [Table 5] The Exemplars column contains apparent rendering artifacts ('/gl⌢beWeb', '/chess-knigh◎Game', '/desk◎opPC', '♂robotEmb'). Replace these with plain-text labels or remove; as printed they obscure the exemplar names.
  3. [Figs. 2–3] The same work is entered under inconsistent keys, e.g., 'SPORT (Li et al., 2025a)' vs. 'Sport (Li et al., 2025b)', and VOYAGER is listed in three tool-related subcategories plus the timeline. The 'not mutually exclusive' caveat covers this in principle, but a table of primary assignments per work would avoid apparent double counting and aid readers.
  4. [§3.2 ('Skill as a reusable update')] Defining a skill as a 'serialized self-induced update operator' is a nonstandard redefinition; the cited literature (Voyager, SkillWeaver) treats a skill as a reusable behavioral procedure. The internal definition is consistent, but the text should flag it as a deliberate modeling choice and state how it relates to the standard usage, since the tool and memory sections rely on it.
  5. [§6.4] The sentence 'Turing completeness... bounded in principle only by the theoretical limits of computation' overstates the implication: universal representability bounds which programs can be expressed, not the statistical efficiency, reward-hacking risk, or safety of self-improvement (cf. Orseau & Ring; §5.3's reward hacking). Suggest rewording to separate expressivity from learnability.
  6. [Table 2 caption / §6.1.2] Given that §6.1.2 describes Self-Refine and multi-agent debate as 'foundational paradigms' for 'transient output correction,' the table groups transient and persistent systems under one label. Mark the former as historical precursors in the table or caption to keep the taxonomy's boundary consistent (see Major Comment 1).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the framework is a stipulative taxonomy and its central claim does not reduce to the authors' own prior work.

full rationale

The survey's load-bearing claim is organizational, not predictive: it defines an agent as A_t=(θ_t,Σ_t) and self-improvement as a self-induced update operator U that commits durable changes to θ or Σ (Eqs. 4–6, §3.2). These equations are definitions/notation, not derived results; no parameter is fitted and no quantity is predicted from a fitted input. The taxonomy classes (intrinsic demonstrations, evaluative feedback, extrinsic experience; prompt/memory/tool/full scaffolding) are classification criteria the paper applies with stated judgment calls ('for clarity, we categorize methods by the dominant signal source' §5 intro), so the framework's coverage is a curated reading of the literature rather than a consequence of the definition. No uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked to force a choice, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation: the scaffold decomposition Σ=(p,m,T,g) is presented as an observation about contemporary agent architectures, supported by examples rather than by appeal to the authors' prior authority. Self-citations are present and concentrated in the historical narrative (Schmidhuber 1987–2022, GPTSwarm Zhuge et al. 2024a, Xiong et al. 2025), but they appear as historical context or as taxonomy instances; removing them would not alter the two-pathway framework. One internal consistency issue is flagged but is not circularity: §2.5 calls in-context learning 'the most immediate form of self-improvement,' while §3.2 excludes transient state X_t from the definition and §7.1 excludes SWE-agent for lacking persistent updates, yet §6.1.2 includes Self-Refine which the text itself describes as 'transient output correction.' This is a boundary-application inconsistency, not a reduction of the framework to its inputs; it affects correctness of classification, not circularity of derivation. Score 2 reflects minor non-load-bearing self-citation concentration, not circularity of the central claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

The framework is definitional: there are no fitted constants and no free parameters. The counted axioms are the non-empirical premises that license the survey's scope and organization: the durable-update boundary defining self-improvement; the assumed exhaustiveness of the two-pathway × three-signal taxonomy despite admitted overlaps; the mechanistic identity between in-context learning and fast-weight programmers used to anchor the history; the qualitative claim that language shrinks the self-modification search space; the Turing-completeness-based license for open-ended scaffold search; and the consistency-signal assumption inherited by a surveyed method family. The two invented entities are analytical devices with no independent falsifiable handle.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Self-improvement = durable (non-transient) update to θ or Σ via a self-induced operator; ephemeral execution state X_t is excluded.
    Defines the survey's boundary (§3.2, Eqs. 4-6). This criterion decides which works count as self-improving and is applied to exclude SWE-agent/Agentless as 'non-self-improving baselines' (§7.1). If the boundary is wrong, the corpus is mis-constructed.
  • domain assumption In-context learning is mechanistically equivalent to the 1991 fast-weight programmers (unnormalized linear Transformers), mediated by the attention key-value cache.
    Stated as fact in §2.5, citing Schlag et al. (2021) and Schmidhuber retrospectives. Used to anchor modern scaffold/prompt improvement in the classical lineage. A contested modeling identification; if wrong, it weakens the historical-continuity narrative though not the taxonomy.
  • domain assumption The two-pathway × three-signal taxonomy is exhaustive; mixed systems are assigned by 'dominant signal source'.
    §4 and §5 intro admit subcategories 'are not mutually exclusive in deployed systems' and that assignment is 'for clarity'. Exhaustiveness is assumed, not proven; misassignment would misrepresent the field's structure.
  • domain assumption Natural language drastically reduces the search space for viable self-modification, making FM-based self-improvement tractable.
    §1: 'By drastically reducing the search space for viable modifications, this language-native paradigm has drawn intense recent attention.' An unquantified qualitative claim that motivates the survey's scope and the θ/Σ framing.
  • domain assumption Turing completeness of the scaffold-as-program licenses open-ended search over agent designs.
    §6.4: 'The universal representability of computer programs (i.e., Turing completeness) enables self-improving agents to explore an extensive space of self-improving strategies.' The computability fact is standard; the inference to open-ended evolvability is a domain leap.
  • domain assumption Consistency/agreement among self-generated samples is a usable weak correctness signal when verifiers are absent.
    Underlies the entire consistency-feedback family (§5.2, Eq. 15). The paper itself flags fragility when models are confidently wrong or samples are correlated, but represents this family as a viable improvement pathway.
invented entities (2)
  • Skill as a serialized self-induced update operator no independent evidence
    purpose: Makes 'skill' orthogonal to the substrate axis (tool, prompt, memory, weight, control logic) and reconciles tool-routing and memory-organizing literatures (§3.2).
    A definitional abstraction with no falsifiable handle outside the survey's own descriptive fit; it adds vocabulary and taxonomy coherence, not measurable predictions.
  • Self-referential full-scaffold improver I_Σt (Eq. 23) no independent evidence
    purpose: Formalizes the agent-as-its-own-improver for full-scaffolding updates, materialized as patches gated by a verifier V (Eq. 25).
    A notational device; the Gödel-machine lineage is cited for grounding, but the survey's own formalism predicts nothing measurable outside itself.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 46881 in / 19714 out tokens · 202785 ms · 2026-08-02T06:28:21.340808+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Self-improving autonomous agents are moving from research prototypes to deployed systems. The primary goal is controllable evolution, or adaptation, from experience with minimal or even no human input. This survey frames modern self-improving agents as adaptive systems that convert experience into accumulated capability gains. We offer a system-level framework that represents a modern agent as a configuration coupling a foundation model with an operational scaffold of prompts, memory, tools, and control logic. Within this framework, self-improvement is formalized as a self-induced update operator that obtains and commits updates to model parameters or scaffold components. We organize prior work by update target and by the signals that drive change, then review applications and discuss evaluation, before closing with open problems and future directions. For convenience, we track technical updates on https://github.com/selfimproving-agent/awesome-Self-Improving-Agents.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13104 by Dandan Guo, Guowei Rong, J\"urgen Schmidhuber, Li Nanbo, Mingchen Zhuge, Qingfeng Lan, R. B. Xiong, Tonghui Li, Wenyi Wang, Yibo Yang, Yimeng Chen, Zhe Ren.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of self-improvement paradigms for modern AI agents. We categorize existing methods into two primary pathways according to what is modified. The first pathway is Foundation Model Improvement, where the model parameters are updated from θt to θt+1 using intrinsic generative demonstrations Dt , intrinsic evaluative feedback et , or extrinsic exploratory experience τt . The second pathway is Scaffoldi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Timeline and taxonomy of self-improvement in foundation-model-based agents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A unified taxonomy of self-improving agents spanning foundation-model updates, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A timeline of theoretical roots and idealized models for self-improving agents, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic of an FM-based agent under our formalism. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Overview of foundation model improvement under agent-induced learning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Prompt refinement as a self-improvement loop and its four paradigms, organized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Overview of memory for self-improving agent. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Tool Governance Metacognition. Formally, tool-based improvement can be written as Tt+1 = IMPROVET (Tt ; St), (21) where St is the learning signal produced by tool gover￾nance metacognition. This metacognition represents the architectural shift essential for a self-improving agent, establishing a dynamic and self-directed mechanism for managing its operational tools (Wang et al., 2025b). It is instantiated … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Full scaffolding self-improvement across iterations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Representative application domains for self-improving agents. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Paper–benchmark incidence matrix for self-improving agents, covering repre￾sentative benchmarks and methods. Rows enumerate benchmark suites and are grouped by evaluation interface: scaffolding-level benchmarks (interactive, agent-centric) versus FM-level benchmarks (static, model-centric). Columns are representative self-improving methods; column colors indicate the improvement mechanism used in our taxo… view at source ↗

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. Efficiency Matters in Autonomous Research

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5

    On twelve code-optimization tasks, no fixed search structure wins on efficiency, and fluid—a UCB portfolio over hill-climbing chains—nearly matches a per-task oracle on AUC of the reward frontier.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 14 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    Kranti Chalamalasetti, Jana Götze, Sherzod Hakimov, Brielen Madureira, Philipp Sadler, and David Schlangen

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.13232. Kranti Chalamalasetti, Jana Götze, Sherzod Hakimov, Brielen Madureira, Philipp Sadler, and David Schlangen. clembench: Using game play to evaluate chat-optimized language models as conversational agents. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 11174–11219, ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.13232 2023

  2. [7]

    URL https://aclanthology.org/2025

    doi: 10.18653/v1/2025.findings-emnlp.660. URL https://aclanthology.org/2025. findings-emnlp.660/. Chrisantha Fernando, Dylan Sunil Banarse, Henryk Michalewski, Simon Osindero, and Tim Rocktäschel. Promptbreeder: Self-referential self-improvement via prompt evolution. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024. URL https://openreview...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [8]

    James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil Rabinowitz, Joel Veness, Guillaume Desjardins, Andrei A Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwinska, et al

    URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=bH5uHIVtTe. James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil Rabinowitz, Joel Veness, Guillaume Desjardins, Andrei A Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwinska, et al. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks.Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 114(13):3521–3526, 2017. Loui...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  4. [9]

    Eric Nivel, Kristinn R Thórisson, Bas R Steunebrink, Haris Dindo, Giovanni Pezzulo, Manuel Rodriguez, Carlos Hernández, Dimitri Ognibene, Jürgen Schmidhuber, Ricardo Sanz, et al

    URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=XGECnjDEcS. Eric Nivel, Kristinn R Thórisson, Bas R Steunebrink, Haris Dindo, Giovanni Pezzulo, Manuel Rodriguez, Carlos Hernández, Dimitri Ognibene, Jürgen Schmidhuber, Ricardo Sanz, et al. Bounded recursive self-improvement.arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6764, 2013. Kolby Nottingham, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Bhavana Dal...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  5. [10]

    Ju Qi, Xiaoxi Mao, Jianfeng Wang, and Na Mou

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2408.07199. Ju Qi, Xiaoxi Mao, Jianfeng Wang, and Na Mou. LLM coaching LLM in self-play training,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [11]

    Zehan Qi, Xiao Liu, Iat Long Iong, Hanyu Lai, Xueqiao Sun, Jiadai Sun, Xinyue Yang, Yu Yang, Shuntian Yao, Wei Xu, Jie Tang, and Yuxiao Dong

    URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=NnEfjLA50a. Zehan Qi, Xiao Liu, Iat Long Iong, Hanyu Lai, Xueqiao Sun, Jiadai Sun, Xinyue Yang, Yu Yang, Shuntian Yao, Wei Xu, Jie Tang, and Yuxiao Dong. WebRL: Training LLM web agents via self-evolving online curriculum reinforcement learning. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. ...

    2025

  7. [12]

    Shuofei Qiao, Runnan Fang, Ningyu Zhang, Yuqi Zhu, Xiang Chen, Shumin Deng, Yong Jiang, Pengjun Xie, Fei Huang, and Huajun Chen

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2508.00271. Shuofei Qiao, Runnan Fang, Ningyu Zhang, Yuqi Zhu, Xiang Chen, Shumin Deng, Yong Jiang, Pengjun Xie, Fei Huang, and Huajun Chen. Agent planning with world knowledge model.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:114843–114871, 2024a. Shuofei Qiao, Ningyu Zhang, Runnan Fang, Yujie Luo, Wangchunshu Zhou, Yuc...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [13]

    : Incremental self-improvement. In Proc. Workshop on Genetic Programming at ML95, pp. 42–49, 1995. Jürgen Schmidhuber. What

    URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=QKBu1BOAwd. Yuxiao Qu, Tianjun Zhang, Naman Garg, and Aviral Kumar. Recursive introspection: Teach- ing language model agents how to self-improve. InThe Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id= DRC9pZwBwR. Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitc...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [14]

    Bas R Steunebrink and JÃ1/4rgen Schmidhuber

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2504.01848. Bas R Steunebrink and JÃ1/4rgen Schmidhuber. Towards an actual gödel machine imple- mentation: A lesson in self-reflective systems. InTheoretical Foundations of Artificial General Intelligence, pp. 173–195. Springer, 2012. Jan Storck, Sepp Hochreiter, Jürgen Schmidhuber, et al. Reinforcement driven information acquisit...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  10. [15]

    Wangcheng Tao, Han Wu, and Weng-Fai Wong

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2510.18257. Wangcheng Tao, Han Wu, and Weng-Fai Wong. Sepo: Self-evolving prompt agent for system prompt optimization, 2026a. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2606.04465. Zhengwei Tao, Ting-En Lin, Xiancai Chen, Hangyu Li, Yuchuan Wu, Yongbin Li, Zhi Jin, Fei Huang, Dacheng Tao, and Jingren Zhou. A survey on self-evolution of large langua...

    arXiv 2024

  11. [1948]

    differentiation

    URL https://dn790006.ca.archive.org/0/items/turing1948/turing1948_text. pdf. Unpublished report (typescript). Original held at King’s College, Cambridge (Turing Digital Archive, AMT/C/11). Alan M. Turing. Computing machinery and intelligence.Mind, LIX(236):433–460, 1950. doi: 10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433. John Von Neumann, Arthur Walter Burks, et al.Theory of...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1950

  12. [2000]

    Alex Iacob, Andrej Jovanovi´ c, William F

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0004001. Alex Iacob, Andrej Jovanovi´ c, William F. Shen, Daniel Burkhardt, Meghdad Kurmanji, Nurbek Tastan, Lorenzo Sani, Niccolò Alberto Elia Venanzi, Ambroise Odonnat, Zeyu Cao, Bill Marino, Xinchi Qiu, and Nicholas D. Lane. The red queen gödel machine: Co-evolving agents and their evaluators, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  13. [2023]

    gradient descent

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2302.12813. Nenad Petrovic, Vahid Zolfaghari, Andre Schamschurko, Sven Kirchner, Fengjunjie Pan, Chengdong Wu, Nils Purschke, Aleksei Velsh, Krzysztof Lebioda, Yinglei Song, Yi Zhang, Lukasz Mazur, and Alois Knoll. Survey of genai for automotive software develop- ment: From requirements to executable code. In2025 2nd International...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [2024]

    Bowen Cao, Deng Cai, and Wai Lam

    URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=qV83K9d5WB. Bowen Cao, Deng Cai, and Wai Lam. Infiniteicl: Breaking the limit of context window size via long short-term memory transformation. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025, pp. 11402–11415, 2025. Hyungjoo Chae, Namyoung Kim, Kai Tzu iunn Ong, Minju Gwak, Gwanwoo Song, Jihoon Kim,...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [2025]

    URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=5298fKGmv3

    ISSN 2835-8856. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=5298fKGmv3. Expert Certification. Mingkai Deng, Jianyu Wang, Cheng-Ping Hsieh, Yihan Wang, Han Guo, Tianmin Shu, Meng Song, Eric Xing, and Zhiting Hu. Rlprompt: Optimizing discrete text prompts with reinforcement learning. InProceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Proc...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.16941 2022

  16. [2026]

    Chunyang Jiang, Chi-Min Chan, Wei Xue, Qifeng Liu, and Yike Guo

    URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=rceD6wwt4B. Chunyang Jiang, Chi-Min Chan, Wei Xue, Qifeng Liu, and Yike Guo. Importance weighting can help large language models self-improve. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, pp. 24257–24265, 2025. Carlos E Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025