Effective Harness Engineering for Algorithm Discovery with Coding Agents
Open accessAbstract
AlphaEvolve and FunSearch have demonstrated the potential of combining large language models (LLMs) with evolutionary search for automated algorithm discovery. However, discovery success is shaped not only by model capability but also significantly by the design of the execution infrastructure, i.e., the harness. This paper investigates effective harness design through three questions: under a fixed token budget, is it better to produce many algorithms with brief thought or fewer algorithms with deeper thought? How should the harness handle evaluation hacks, where generated programs exploit the scoring function? And how can agents that require full filesystem access execute safely in parallel? Using Vesper, an algorithm discovery framework that incorporates harness improvements addressing these questions, we evaluate on Circle Packing under the same token budget. Interestingly, generating fewer algorithms while thinking more deeply about each one achieved higher scores. That is, scaling the quality of each individual is more budget-efficient than scaling the number of evolutionary generations. Surprisingly, more capable models produced evaluation hacks at higher rates, making hack detection increasingly necessary as models scale.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Much of what looks like model self-improvement is improvement of the scaffolding the model searches within.
“The pattern mirrors §3.5's loop-engineering shift: much of what looks like model self-improvement is improvement of the scaffolding the model searches within”
From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [170]
Controlled studies of harness design show that discovery success depends heavily on the execution infrastructure around the model-how the token budget splits between many shallow candidates and fewer deep ones, how evaluation failures are handled-independent of model capability.
“Controlled studies of harness design show that discovery success depends heavily on the execution infrastructure around the model - how the token budget splits between many shallow candidates and fewer deep ones, how evaluation failures are handled - independent of model capability [170]”
From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [170]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
- Authors
- Ishibashi, Y., Yano, T., & Oyamada, M.
- ORCID
- Oyamada, Masafumi
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2605.15221
- OpenAlex
- W7161550390
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
- Keywords
- harness design, algorithm discovery, large language models, evolutionary search, coding agents, token budget, circle packing, Vesper
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.
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