arXiv preprint ·
The Self-Improvement Problem
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
With the rise of large language models, agentic systems are becoming increasingly autonomous, as they write code, call tools, revise prompts, and propose modifications to their own components. This autonomy raises a fundamental question for safe self-improvement: can an automated gate like a reward model or an automated reviewer reliably decide whether a proposed update should be accepted? The difficulty is structural. The gate must be a terminating, computable procedure, while the property we ultimately care about, namely whether an update is a genuine semantic improvement, depends on potentially unbounded program behavior. We formalize this mismatch by modeling agents as programs and defining improvement in terms of a semantic score that need not be computable. We study two evaluation abstractions. The first is a certifier that approves or rejects an update. The second is a search procedure that, given access to a proposal generator, attempts to output some improving candidate if one exists. We show that, in the fully general setting, no terminating procedure can simultaneously guarantee reliability (never accepting a non-improvement) and non-conservatism (never missing an available improvement): self-referential constructions can force any such gate or searcher to fail. Randomized gates with bounded error face the same limit. We then identify a standard decidable regime used in practice (bounded evaluation and a finite proposal budget) under which exhaustive simulation yields a terminating search procedure with the desired guarantees. We also show the limit of this recovery: a chain of accepted updates can raise the bounded score in every round while the true score falls. Our results draw a boundary between unbounded, universal settings where correctness guarantees collapse and bounded settings where they can be recovered by design.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
Learning When to Think: Utility-Guided Adaptive Reasoning for Efficient Text Retrieval
Self-Evolving Coding Agents via Harness-Policy Optimization
INCONVENIENT: A Benchmark to Assess LLM Generalization Capabilities from Convenience Samples
Prune the Leaky Neurons: Mitigating Private Data Leakage in Fine-Tuned LLMs via Joint-Embedding-Guided Pruning
ReviewPilot: A Multi-Agent System for Screening and Data Extraction in Systematic Reviews
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.