Beneath the Surface: What We Overlook When We Talk About Agent Evolution
Abstract
Agent harness evolution can improve benchmark performance without weight updates, but gains are unreliable, costly, and transfer inconsistently, motivating preservation-aware evaluation and EvoAudit revisions.
Agent harness evolution enables recursive self-improvement (RSI) without updating model weights. We examine whether higher benchmark scores yield reliable, efficient, and transferable improvement. We evaluate four methods across harnesses, general and coding tasks. Repeated evaluations, controlled agent expansion, component interventions, and admission replays reveal recurring patterns. All sixteen evolved agents gain previously uncovered tasks while losing previously covered ones. In one general-task case, reliability rises by 5.2 points despite losing ten previously covered tasks. Most reliability gains also increase deployment cost. Specific changes usually outperform generic reminders, but their benefits can change when combined. The highest-scoring agent does not yield the largest mean improvement in any of our four pools, and stricter admission can discard useful alternatives. Transfer selectively preserves gains: coverage usually falls on the general-task target across both harness types and paradigms, but rises on the coding target with the outer-layer-only harness. These findings motivate preservation-aware evaluation, tested decision rules, and explicit applicability conditions. As a constructive follow-up, EvoAudit turns these diagnostics into revisions of select, analyze, mutate, and gate, achieving the best performance.
Community
Does a higher benchmark score really mean an agent is getting better? ๐ค
In our paper, we go beyond surface-level benchmark evaluations to investigate what actually happens during agent evolution and why improvements do not always translate into better agents.
We systematically study agent evolution from three perspectives, Phenomenology, Generalization, and Mechanisms, and further dissect four key stages: Select, Analyze, Mutate, and Gate.
Building on these insights, we introduce EvoAudit and Audit-Guided Evolution (AGE), moving toward more reliable, evidence-driven agent self-improvement.
๐ป Code: https://github.com/simple-agent-lab/RSIHub
Sixteen evolved agents all gaining some tasks while losing others is the kind of honest result I wish more benchmark papers showed. A higher score hiding ten lost tasks stopped me for a moment. Did the losses cluster in particular kinds of tasks?
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
- SkillNEO: Non-Elitist Evolutionary Optimization of Agent Skills (2026)
- Self-Evolving Agent Harness (2026)
- Video-RSI: Recursive Self-Improvement of Video Understanding Agents via Harness Evolution (2026)
- Harness-S: Learning from Sibling Harnesses for Generalizable Agent Training (2026)
- EnactOpt: Diagnosis-Guided Harness Evolution for Embodied Agents (2026)
- The View from Nowhere: Population-Centered Agent Evolution (2026)
- Learning from Research: Toward Lifelong Agent Harness Evolution (2026)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2611.07624 Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper