arXiv:2610.27465v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Agent platforms are starting to improve their own agents: they read a deployed agent's execution traces, derive a change, have an automated verifier approve it, and release it with no human author. How much of this loop can safely run without a human? We propose two quantities a platform can measure. Verifier strength $\sigma$ is how well the available verifier — often an LLM judge — agrees with a trusted reference verifier; it limits how much a step can improve the agent. Recoverability is how cheaply a bad change can be undone: whether undoing it needs a new verifier approval, and how much of the old behavior a rollback restores. A step should run unattended only if both are adequate. On our platform this rule allows prompt, tool and skill edits to run unattended and keeps weight updates under human sign-off.
Our main contribution is these two definitions and how to measure them. We built a platform that applies the rule and tested it in two ways: on the platform's own approval gate, and in controlled experiments on the $\tau^2$-bench agent benchmark. On verifier strength, the platform's LLM judge sometimes gave the same score no matter what it was shown (9 of 37 settings) and reported no error, so a verifier can look healthy while approving anything; its strength must be measured, and two simple tests catch the failure. On recoverability, restoring a saved copy brought the agent back to its original behavior, but a regenerated undo did not, so only changes whose old version is kept can be reversed without a human; and while a change was deployed, it altered the outcome of 17 percent of tasks beyond normal run-to-run variation, which no undo repairs. Together these support the rule: a change can run unattended only when its old version is kept and its verifier's strength has been measured.
Abstract: Agent platforms are starting to improve their own agents: they read a deployed agent's execution traces, derive a change, have an automated verifier approve it, and release it with no human author. How much of this loop can safely run without a human? We propose two quantities a platform can measure. Verifier strength $\sigma$ is how well the available verifier — often an LLM judge — agrees with a trusted reference verifier; it limits how much a step can improve the agent. Recoverability is how cheaply a bad change can be undone: whether undoing it needs a new verifier approval, and how much of the old behavior a rollback restores. A step should run unattended only if both are adequate. On our platform this rule allows prompt, tool and skill edits to run unattended and keeps weight updates under human sign-off.
Our main contribution is these two definitions and how to measure them. We built a platform that applies the rule and tested it in two ways: on the platform's own approval gate, and in controlled experiments on the $\tau^2$-bench agent benchmark. On verifier strength, the platform's LLM judge sometimes gave the same score no matter what it was shown (9 of 37 settings) and reported no error, so a verifier can look healthy while approving anything; its strength must be measured, and two simple tests catch the failure. On recoverability, restoring a saved copy brought the agent back to its original behavior, but a regenerated undo did not, so only changes whose old version is kept can be reversed without a human; and while a change was deployed, it altered the outcome of 17 percent of tasks beyond normal run-to-run variation, which no undo repairs. Together these support the rule: a change can run unattended only when its old version is kept and its verifier's strength has been measured.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: