CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2Evolutionary Algorithms and ApplicationsMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms ResearchAI-based Problem Solving and Planning

Escher-Loop: Mutual Evolution by Closed-Loop Self-Referential Optimization

Open access
Liu, Ziyang, Guo, Xinyan, Wei, Xuchen, Hao, Han, Yang, Liu·2026·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2604.23472arXiv 2604.23472
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

While recent autonomous agents demonstrate impressive capabilities, they predominantly rely on manually scripted workflows and handcrafted heuristics, inherently limiting their potential for open-ended improvement. To address this, we propose Escher-Loop, a fully closed-loop framework that operationalizes the mutual evolution of two distinct populations: Task Agents that solve concrete problems, and Optimizer Agents that recursively refine both the task agents and themselves. To sustain this self-referential evolution, we propose a dynamic benchmarking mechanism that seamlessly reuses the empirical scores of newly generated task agents as relative win-loss signals to update optimizers' scores. This mechanism leverages the evolution of task agents as an inherent signal to drive the evaluation and refinement of optimizers without additional overhead. Empirical evaluations on mathematical optimization problems demonstrate that Escher-Loop effectively pushes past the performance ceilings of static baselines, achieving the highest absolute peak performance across all evaluated tasks under matched compute. Remarkably, we observe that the optimizer agents dynamically adapt their strategies to match the shifting demands of high-performing task agents, which explains the system's continuous improvement and superior late-stage performance.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Escher-Loop is a closed-loop framework in which task agents and optimizer agents mutually evolve, with optimizer scores updated through dynamic benchmarking that reuses task-agent evaluation scores as relative win-loss signals. Across three geometric optimization tasks under a matched 10M equivalent-token budget, it achieves the highest absolute peak performance versus an OpenEvolve baseline.

Key findings

  • Escher-Loop achieved the highest absolute peak performance across all evaluated tasks under matched compute. Best evolved task agents: Kissing Number (KN) `s_raw = 582` vs reference `s_ref = 593` (`s_norm = 0.9815`); Circle Packing (CP) `s_raw = 2.6352223118` vs `s_ref = 2.6350` (`s_norm = 1.0001`); Heilbronn Triangle (HT) `s_raw = 0.0365253447400576` vs `s_ref = 0.036529889880030156` (`s_norm = 0.9999`).
  • Against the OpenEvolve baseline: in KN, all three Escher-Loop runs rapidly ascended while only one baseline run was competitive and two were trapped in plateaus; in CP, Escher-Loop found high-quality solutions in two runs while all baseline runs converged suboptimally early; in HT, the baseline had higher initial efficiency and near-optimal results across all trials, but Escher-Loop still secured the highest overall peak.
  • The isolated Single Best Optimizer (SBO) outperformed the baseline on KN and CP, but underperformed the baseline on HT across all metrics; across all three landscapes, SBO never exceeded the full Escher-Loop peak.
  • Dynamic benchmarking produced tiered Elo trajectories: top optimizers were sampled more and received denser score updates, bottom-ranked optimizers were marginalized and discarded, and rank-based Softmax sampling still allowed lower-ranked optimizers to climb. Evolved optimizers developed diagnostic feedback, adaptive search control, stage-aware prompting, and reference-program mining.

Methods

  • Framework: Escher-Loop maintains a Task Agent Population and an Optimizer Agent Population. Optimizers transform task agents using tuples of agents and scores; the self-referential step applies an optimizer to other optimizers. Dynamic benchmarking converts task-agent evaluation scores into pairwise win-loss signals and updates optimizer Elo ratings, with rank-based Softmax sampling.
  • Experimental protocol: three geometric optimization landscapes—Kissing Number, Circle Packing, and Heilbronn Triangle—under a strict budget of 10M equivalent tokens. The baseline is OpenEvolve. Compute is normalized as `T_eq = T_out + 0.25 T_in`. Implementation uses a hybrid Gemini 3 Flash ensemble (80% low thinking, 20% dynamic thinking), optimizer population size 50, Elo initialized at 1200.0 with K-factor 32.0, MAP-Elites archive, and `max_tokens = 60,000`.
  • Analysis: best-so-far normalized task score is plotted against cumulative equivalent token consumption; the highest-scoring evolved optimizer is isolated as SBO and compared to the baseline; optimizer Elo trajectories are tracked; qualitative code segments from evolved optimizers are examined.

Limitations

  • The paper states that its current exploration demonstrates self-referential improvement within individual problem spaces and leaves full validation of unified cross-domain transferability to future work.
  • The paper states that the SBO underperforms the baseline on the simplest HT task and never surpasses the full Escher-Loop peak on any task, suggesting a single fixed optimizer is suboptimal.
  • Evident from the text: evaluation is limited to three geometric optimization tasks and one handcrafted baseline (OpenEvolve), and no statistical significance tests or variance quantification beyond independent runs are reported.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2604.23472

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

1 of 4 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingown data

    Escher-Loop secures the highest overall peak performance among all experiments conducted.

    “Despite this, Escher-Loop still manages to secure the highest overall peak performance among all experiments we conducted.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: OpenEvolve is a representative handcrafted baseline optimizer for comparing against Escher-Loop.
  • Findingown data

    In the HT task, the SBO underperforms the baseline across all metrics.

    “However, in the simplest HT task, the SBO underperforms the baseline across all metrics.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: OpenEvolve is a representative handcrafted baseline optimizer for comparing against Escher-Loop.
  • Findingown data

    The optimizer agents dynamically adapt their strategies to match the shifting demands of high-performing task agents.

    “we observe that the optimizer agents dynamically adapt their strategies to match the shifting demands of high-performing task agents”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The best evolved task agent for Kissing Number achieves s_raw = 582, corresponding to s_norm = 0.9815.

    “The best evolved task agent shown below achieves s raw = 582, corresponding to s norm = 582/593 = 0.9815.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The capacity for autonomous evolution naturally extends across all three problem domains considered in this work.

    “We observe that this capacity for autonomous evolution naturally extends across all three problem domains considered in this work.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The three geometric optimization tasks (Kissing Number, Circle Packing, Heilbronn Triangle) are representative of mathematical optimization problems for evaluating Escher-Loop.
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 10
  • May combine two claims. 19
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The reference values s_ref are fixed benchmark constants adopted directly from the AlphaEvolve evaluation environments to ensure standardized comparisons.

    “These reference values s ref are fixed benchmark constants adopted directly from the AlphaEvolve evaluation environments (Novikov et al., 2025) to ensure standardized comparisons.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Novikov et al., 2025 source

      Section 2.1 (p. 3) describes user-provided evaluation functions that return scalar metrics, and Section 2.4 (pp. 7–8) discusses how solutions are scored. Neither passage identifies s_ref values or says that fixed benchmark constants can be adopted directly from AlphaEvolve evaluation environments. Searches for s_ref, reference scores, and fixed benchmark values found no passage establishing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Lower-scoring optimizers receive far fewer opportunities to compete, and those ranking at the very bottom are marginalized and discarded from the population.

    “Conversely, lower-scoring optimizers receive far fewer opportunities to compete, and in practice, those ranking at the very bottom are marginalized and discarded from the population.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Escher-Loop autonomously discovers sophisticated optimization strategies that outperform static evolutionary baselines, achieving higher performance ceilings.

    “Through experiments, we demonstrate that Escher-Loop autonomously discovers sophisticated optimization strategies that outperform static evolutionary baselines, achieving higher performance ceilings.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The three geometric optimization tasks (Kissing Number, Circle Packing, Heilbronn Triangle) are representative of mathematical optimization problems for evaluating Escher-Loop.
    • Rests on an assumption: OpenEvolve is a representative handcrafted baseline optimizer for comparing against Escher-Loop.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Empirical evaluations on mathematical optimization problems demonstrate that Escher-Loop effectively pushes past the performance ceilings of static baselines, achieving the highest absolute peak performance across all evaluated tasks under matched compute.

    “Empirical evaluations on mathematical optimization problems demonstrate that Escher-Loop effectively pushes past the performance ceilings of static baselines, achieving the highest absolute peak performance across all evaluated tasks under matched compute.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The three geometric optimization tasks (Kissing Number, Circle Packing, Heilbronn Triangle) are representative of mathematical optimization problems for evaluating Escher-Loop.
    • Rests on an assumption: OpenEvolve is a representative handcrafted baseline optimizer for comparing against Escher-Loop.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the CP landscape, the SBO comprehensively outperforms the baseline in terms of final task scores, optimization efficiency, and cross-run stability.

    “In the CP landscape, the SBO comprehensively outperforms the baseline in terms of final task scores, optimization efficiency, and cross-run stability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: OpenEvolve is a representative handcrafted baseline optimizer for comparing against Escher-Loop.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The optimizers discover intuitive and highly effective search strategies, such as reasoning over historical attempts to avoid repeated failures, and extracting beneficial logic from diverse candidate programs to combine them.

    “Specifically, they discover intuitive and highly effective search strategies, such as reasoning over historical attempts to avoid repeated failures, and extracting beneficial logic from diverse candidate programs to combine them.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the CP landscape, Escher-Loop successfully discovers high-quality solutions in two runs, while all runs of the baseline method quickly converge to a suboptimal outcome early in the process and remain in long plateaus.

    “Similarly, in the CP landscape, Escher-Loop successfully discovers high-quality solutions in two runs, while all runs of the baseline method quickly converge to a suboptimal outcome early in the process and remain in long plateaus.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: OpenEvolve is a representative handcrafted baseline optimizer for comparing against Escher-Loop.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Top-performing agents participate in significantly more task-generation rounds, which yields richer, more fine-grained score updates.

    “Top-performing agents participate in significantly more task-generation rounds, which yields richer, more fine-grained score updates (visually manifested as the dense stepwise fluctuations at the top of the graph).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the KN landscape, all three independent runs of Escher-Loop rapidly ascend to the high-scoring regime, whereas the baseline optimizer struggles with stability: only one baseline run achieves a competitive score, while the other two are trapped in extended plateaus.

    “in the KN landscape, all three independent runs of Escher-Loop rapidly ascend to the high-scoring regime, whereas the baseline optimizer struggles with stability: only one baseline run achieves a competitive score, while the other two are trapped in extended plateaus.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: OpenEvolve is a representative handcrafted baseline optimizer for comparing against Escher-Loop.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the HT landscape, the baseline optimizer exhibits higher initial search efficiency, reaching the high-score regime faster and consistently achieving near-optimal results across all trials.

    “In the HT landscape, the baseline optimizer exhibits higher initial search efficiency, reaching the high-score regime faster and consistently achieving near-optimal results across all trials.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: OpenEvolve is a representative handcrafted baseline optimizer for comparing against Escher-Loop.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The dynamic adaptation of optimizer agents explains the system's continuous improvement and superior late-stage performance.

    “which explains the system's continuous improvement and superior late-stage performance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    By iteratively optimizing the task and optimizer agents through this grounded feedback loop, Escher-Loop minimizes the reliance on human-designed priors and achieves higher performance ceilings and superior adaptability than systems relying on fixed optimization logic.

    “By iteratively optimizing the task and optimizer agents through this grounded feedback loop, Escher-Loop minimizes the reliance on human-designed priors and achieves higher performance ceilings and superior adaptability than systems relying on fixed optimization logic.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The three geometric optimization tasks (Kissing Number, Circle Packing, Heilbronn Triangle) are representative of mathematical optimization problems for evaluating Escher-Loop.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    All principal comparisons are conducted under a matched equivalent-token budget.

    “All principal comparisons are conducted under a matched equivalent-token budget.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    This capability helps to break through late-stage plateaus and yield superior outcomes.

    “This capability helps to break through late-stage plateaus and yield superior outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Because s_ref represents a truncated baseline, the unclipped normalized score s_norm may slightly exceed 1.0 due to this precision difference.

    “Note that s ref represents a truncated baseline; consequently, the unclipped normalized score s norm may slightly exceed 1.0 due to this precision difference.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The SBO's failure to match the baseline on the HT task, combined with its inability to ever surpass the full Escher-Loop's peak score on any task, suggests that relying on a single, fixed optimizer is suboptimal.

    “However, the SBO's failure to match the baseline on the HT task, combined with its inability to ever surpass the full Escher-Loop's peak score on any task, suggests that relying on a single, fixed optimizer is suboptimal.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The three geometric optimization tasks (Kissing Number, Circle Packing, Heilbronn Triangle) are representative of mathematical optimization problems for evaluating Escher-Loop.
    • Rests on an assumption: OpenEvolve is a representative handcrafted baseline optimizer for comparing against Escher-Loop.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Elo is used as a comparative ranking signal for optimizer agents, while downstream task metrics remain the ground-truth signal for task-program quality.

    “Elo is therefore used as a comparative ranking signal for optimizer agents, while downstream task metrics remain the ground-truth signal for task-program quality.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Unless otherwise stated, the matched-budget comparisons in the main text are reported under a budget of 10M equivalent tokens per task.

    “Unless otherwise stated, the matched-budget comparisons in the main text are reported under a budget of 10M equivalent tokens per task.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The data indicates that a handcrafted baseline can be highly efficient and sufficient for simpler problem spaces (such as HT), but it lacks the robustness to consistently navigate more complex landscapes like KN and CP.

    “The data indicates that while a handcrafted baseline can be highly efficient and sufficient for simpler problem spaces (such as HT), it lacks the robustness to consistently navigate more complex landscapes like KN and CP.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The three geometric optimization tasks (Kissing Number, Circle Packing, Heilbronn Triangle) are representative of mathematical optimization problems for evaluating Escher-Loop.
    • Rests on an assumption: OpenEvolve is a representative handcrafted baseline optimizer for comparing against Escher-Loop.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Optimizer quality is assessed through repeated relative comparisons under evolving task populations rather than through a single static benchmark.

    “Optimizer quality is assessed through repeated relative comparisons under evolving task populations rather than through a single static benchmark.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The dynamic benchmarking mechanism leverages the evolution of task agents as an inherent signal to drive the evaluation and refinement of optimizers without additional overhead, ultimately yielding the joint evolution of both task performance and optimization capability.

    “This dynamic benchmarking mechanism leverages the evolution of task agents as an inherent signal to drive the evaluation and refinement of optimizers without additional overhead, ultimately yielding the joint evolution of both task performance and optimization capability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The rank-based Softmax design discards absolute score magnitudes and relies on relative ranking to induce stable and fair evolutionary pressure while preserving population diversity.

    “This design discards absolute score magnitudes, which are not comparable across evolving landscapes, and instead relies on relative ranking to induce stable and fair evolutionary pressure while preserving population diversity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Evaluating every single optimizer on the most current task agents at every step would be computationally prohibitively expensive.

    “If we were to evaluate every single optimizer on the most current task agents at every step, the computational cost would be prohibitively high.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationnone given

    Escher-Loop highlights a shift in objective from a single task solution to the iterative optimization process itself.

    “More broadly, Escher-Loop highlights a shift in objective from a single task solution to the iterative optimization process itself.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In harder tasks (KN and CP), Escher-Loop demonstrates a superior ability to discover high-performing solutions and avoid suboptimal traps.

    “In these harder tasks, Escher-Loop demonstrates a superior ability to discover high-performing solutions and avoid suboptimal traps.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The three geometric optimization tasks (Kissing Number, Circle Packing, Heilbronn Triangle) are representative of mathematical optimization problems for evaluating Escher-Loop.
    • Rests on an assumption: OpenEvolve is a representative handcrafted baseline optimizer for comparing against Escher-Loop.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Reliance on handcrafted heuristics inherently limits the generalization of autonomous agent systems and caps their potential for autonomous growth.

    “This reliance on handcrafted heuristics inherently limits their generalization and caps their potential for autonomous growth.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Absolute task scores are non-stationary due to the continually improving Task Agent Population, so they cannot reliably track optimizer quality over time.

    “Because absolute task scores are non-stationary due to the continually improving Task Agent Population, they cannot reliably track optimizer quality over time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    All sampling operations follow a unified rank-based Softmax mechanism to ensure robustness against heterogeneous score distributions.

    “All sampling operations follow a unified rank-based Softmax mechanism to ensure robustness against heterogeneous score distributions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The normalization ensures that performance differences cannot be attributed merely to unequal expenditure of inference-time compute.

    “This normalization ensures that performance differences cannot be attributed merely to unequal expenditure of inference-time compute.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
29 of 29

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The three geometric optimization tasks (Kissing Number, Circle Packing, Heilbronn Triangle) are representative of mathematical optimization problems for evaluating Escher-Loop.

    “We consider three geometric optimization landscapes: Kissing Number (KN), Circle Packing (CP), and Heilbronn Triangle (HT).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    OpenEvolve is a representative handcrafted baseline optimizer for comparing against Escher-Loop.

    “We employ OpenEvolve (Sharma, 2025), an open-source reproduction of AlphaEvolve, as the representative handcrafted baseline optimizer.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The three optimization landscapes studied (Kissing Number, Circle Packing, Heilbronn Triangle) are representative of optimization problems in general.

    “the three optimization landscapes studied in the paper”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Elo rating is a valid comparative ranking signal for optimizer quality.

    “Elo is therefore used as a comparative ranking signal for optimizer agents”
4 of 4

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik R Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=WE_vluYUL-X.
  2. Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion: language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. In A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, pages 8634-8652.
  3. John Yang, Carlos E. Jimenez, Alexander Wettig, Kilian Lieret, Shunyu Yao, Karthik Narasimhan, and Ofir Press. SWE-agent: agent-computer interfaces enable automated software engineering. In A. Glober- son, L. Mackey, D. Belgrave, A. Fan, U. Paquet, J. Tomczak, and C. Zhang, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 37, pages 50528-50652.
  4. Curran Associates, Inc., 2024a. doi:10.52202/079017-1601. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2024/file/ 5a7c947568c1b1328ccc5230172e1e7c-Paper-Conference.pdf. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Irving John Good. Speculations concerning the first ultraintelligent machine. In Advances in computers, volume 6, pages 31-88. Elsevier, 1966.
  6. Jürgen Schmidhuber. Evolutionary principles in self-referential learning, or on learning how to learn: The meta- meta-... hook. Diploma thesis, Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München, Germany, 1987. URL https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/diploma1987ocr.pdf.
  7. Chris Argyris. Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard business review, 55(5):115-125, 1977.
  8. Chrisantha Fernando, Dylan Sunil Banarse, Henryk Michalewski, Simon Osindero, and Tim Rocktäschel. Prompt- breeder: Self-referential self-improvement via prompt evolution. In Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Zico Kolter, Katherine Heller, Adrian Weller, Nuria Oliver, Jonathan Scarlett, and Felix Berkenkamp, editors, Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 235 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 13481-13544. PMLR, 21-27 Jul 2024. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v235/fernando24a.html.
  9. Shengran Hu, Cong Lu, and Jeff Clune. Automated design of agentic systems. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=t9U3LW7JVX.
  10. Giuseppe Paolo, Jamieson Warner, Hormoz Shahrzad, Babak Hodjat, Risto Miikkulainen, and Elliot Meyerson. TerraLingua: Emergence and analysis of open-endedness in llm ecologies, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2603.16910.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, Z., Guo, X., Wei, X., Hao, H., & Yang, L.
Affiliations
  • Soochow University (TW)
  • Shenzhen Institute of Information Technology (CN)
  • Tsinghua University (CN)
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
ORCID
Hao, Han
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2604.23472
arXiv
2604.23472
OpenAlex
W7157333886
Semantic Scholar
2f031b31babe1011dc4df0529461d6bfb7cffa40
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Research Foundation
  • National Research Foundation Singapore
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Keywords
multi-agent systems, task agents, dynamic benchmarking, optimization, autonomous agents

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-24.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-24.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review