arXiv:2609.37834v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Harness optimization provides a practical setting for recursive self-improvement (RSI), where agent-generated modifications inform subsequent changes through execution feedback. Recent work such as Meta-Harness implements this process through iterative code generation and evaluation, but retains a fixed development set and proposal policy. These constraints channel evolution along a single search trajectory, increasing the risk of converging to a local optimum. We make the improvement process itself adaptive by organizing search into branches with evolving development subsets and proposal policies. Each branch retains development cases solved by more of its leading harnesses than by those of other branches, drops cases solved by every leading harness across all branches, and revises its proposal policy using its own search history. To deploy the resulting complementary harnesses, we propose a router to select one development-selected branch head for each new input before execution. Across mathematical reasoning and agentic coding benchmarks, our system achieves relative improvements over Meta-Harness of 34.8% on Olympiad-level mathematical reasoning, 11.6% on Terminal-Bench 2.0, and 3.8% on SWE-bench Lite, with harness selection and router configuration based solely on development data. These results show that evolving branch objectives and proposal policies can yield complementary harnesses whose strengths a router combines without access to test outcomes.
Abstract: Harness optimization provides a practical setting for recursive self-improvement (RSI), where agent-generated modifications inform subsequent changes through execution feedback. Recent work such as Meta-Harness implements this process through iterative code generation and evaluation, but retains a fixed development set and proposal policy. These constraints channel evolution along a single search trajectory, increasing the risk of converging to a local optimum. We make the improvement process itself adaptive by organizing search into branches with evolving development subsets and proposal policies. Each branch retains development cases solved by more of its leading harnesses than by those of other branches, drops cases solved by every leading harness across all branches, and revises its proposal policy using its own search history. To deploy the resulting complementary harnesses, we propose a router to select one development-selected branch head for each new input before execution. Across mathematical reasoning and agentic coding benchmarks, our system achieves relative improvements over Meta-Harness of 34.8% on Olympiad-level mathematical reasoning, 11.6% on Terminal-Bench 2.0, and 3.8% on SWE-bench Lite, with harness selection and router configuration based solely on development data. These results show that evolving branch objectives and proposal policies can yield complementary harnesses whose strengths a router combines without access to test outcomes.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: