arXiv:2610.10611v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: A self-improving agent can find accepted solutions more often without expanding the tasks its verification interface can accept. We extend task-relative verification with explicit support and transcript interfaces to distinguish search gains from changes in accepted-task coverage. A stage's native reach contains tasks accepted with default support; its closure frontier contains tasks accepted with any support the declared interface permits. A semantic containment criterion identifies the authority or exposure condition that every verified escape must violate, while guard-transfer invariance prevents a change of representation from being counted as a capability expansion. An executable Boolean-program repair agent makes the distinction concrete: over 36,864 paired runs, counterexample feedback reduces verifier calls without changing coverage, whereas an enforced permission change admits a new target with a proof excluding every old-interface program. Exact and uniformly gapped randomized verification share this account; independent majority amplification improves reliability while preserving the accepted language. Separate adaptive-selection contracts state what is additionally required to interpret a proposed successor's score as evidence of deployment improvement. Classical hierarchy results and finite audits provide supporting boundaries. The framework specifies the evidence needed to establish improved search, wider accepted capability, and reliable successor selection.
Abstract: A self-improving agent can find accepted solutions more often without expanding the tasks its verification interface can accept. We extend task-relative verification with explicit support and transcript interfaces to distinguish search gains from changes in accepted-task coverage. A stage's native reach contains tasks accepted with default support; its closure frontier contains tasks accepted with any support the declared interface permits. A semantic containment criterion identifies the authority or exposure condition that every verified escape must violate, while guard-transfer invariance prevents a change of representation from being counted as a capability expansion. An executable Boolean-program repair agent makes the distinction concrete: over 36,864 paired runs, counterexample feedback reduces verifier calls without changing coverage, whereas an enforced permission change admits a new target with a proof excluding every old-interface program. Exact and uniformly gapped randomized verification share this account; independent majority amplification improves reliability while preserving the accepted language. Separate adaptive-selection contracts state what is additionally required to interpret a proposed successor's score as evidence of deployment improvement. Classical hierarchy results and finite audits provide supporting boundaries. The framework specifies the evidence needed to establish improved search, wider accepted capability, and reliable successor selection.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org