MESH-Harness: Self-Improving Agent Harnesses via Bandit-Guided Compositional Evolution
Open accessAbstract
An agent harness is the code that organizes context, maintains state, and coordinates tool calls for a language model. We study how to improve the harness under a limited evaluation budget while keeping model weights fixed. Our method, MESH-Harness, organizes each harness into functional modules with explicit role-specific interfaces, allowing alternative implementations of each module to be substituted and recombined. It uses shared module representations and full-covariance LinUCB to score candidate combinations based on predicted performance and exploration value. Mixed-start coordinate ascent selects complete configurations for evaluation without enumerating the combinatorial space. Validation traces then guide local code edits, and the resulting candidates are incorporated into fixed-capacity role-specific pools for subsequent recombination. On text tasks, retrieval-augmented mathematical reasoning, code generation, and interactive scientific tasks, MESH-Harness outperforms Meta-Harness by 5.70, 7.01, 2.00, and 5.00 points, respectively, under matched candidate-evaluation budgets. Iterative harness optimization improves MESH-Harness by 5.63-7.79 points over its first-round configurations. For the reported configurations, aggregate test-time cost is 44.2% lower than that of Meta-Harness, while total cost including search is 14.6% lower. These results show that combining module-level design reuse with feedback-driven compositional search can systematically improve agent harnesses while keeping overall optimization cost under control.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
MESH-Harness improves agent harnesses without changing model weights by representing each harness as composable functional modules and using bandit-guided search plus trace-driven module evolution under a fixed evaluation budget. Across four task domains it outperforms Meta-Harness under matched candidate-evaluation budgets while reducing reported test-time and total search-plus-test costs.
Key findings
- Under matched 40-candidate-evaluation budgets, MESH-Harness beats Meta-Harness by 5.70 points on Text, 7.01 on Math, 2.00 on LiveCodeBench, and 5.00 on ScienceWorld.
- Iterative harness optimization improves MESH-Harness by 5.63–7.79 points over its first-round configurations; on ScienceWorld it rises from 51.90 to 58.10, starting below the ReAct reference of 55.50.
- Reported aggregate test-time cost is 44.2% lower than Meta-Harness, and total cost including search is 14.6% lower.
- Text ablations show guided selection matters: random composition scores 48.80 versus 56.33 for full MESH-Harness (−7.53), and no pool refresh scores 51.20 (−5.13).
Methods
- MESH-Harness organizes a harness into functional slots with fixed interfaces, maintains per-slot pools of LLM-initialized implementations, encodes each implementation, and uses full-covariance LinUCB with shared module representations to score complete configurations.
- It selects configurations via mixed-start coordinate ascent rather than enumerating the combinatorial space, then uses validation traces to guide local code edits and fixed-capacity pool updates.
- Experiments cover text tasks (LawBench, USPTO, Symptom-to-Diagnosis), retrieval-augmented math (OlympiadBench, MathArena), LiveCodeBench, and ScienceWorld; all optimization methods use 40 complete candidate evaluations per task, with Claude Opus 5 as proposer, DeepSeek V4 Flash as default executor, and Qwen3-Embedding-8B as encoder; reported test scores average three runs of frozen harnesses.
Limitations
- The paper does not include a dedicated limitations section; stated constraints are mainly about protocol, such as using fixed task splits, validation-based final selection, and frozen harnesses before held-out testing.
- Evident from the text: results are tied to the specific benchmarks, models, and 40-candidate-evaluation budget used, so generalization beyond these settings is not established.
- Evident from the text: test scores are reported as means over three runs without variance or significance testing, and cost accounting relies on provider-reported cache accounting.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
1 of 10 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data§ 5.3 CONTRIBUTIONS OF SELECTION AND EVOLUTION · p. 7
Randomly selecting one implementation per slot scores 48.80, 7.53 points below the full method.
“Randomly selecting one implementation per slot scores 48.80, 7.53 points below the full method (Table 4).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ ABSTRACT · p. 1
MESH-Harness outperforms Meta-Harness on code generation (LiveCodeBench) by 2.00 points under matched candidate-evaluation budgets.
“On text tasks, retrieval-augmented mathematical reasoning, code generation, and interactive scientific tasks, MESH-Harness outperforms Meta-Harness by 5.70, 7.01, 2.00, and 5.00 points, respectively, under matched candidate-evaluation budgets.”
- Also stated in: § 5.2 PERFORMANCE UNDER A FIXED EVALUATION CAP · p. 7 · plain
“Relative to Meta-Harness, the gains are 5.70 points on Text, 7.01 on Math, 2.00 on LiveCodeBench, and 5.00 on ScienceWorld.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 5.2 PERFORMANCE UNDER A FIXED EVALUATION CAP · p. 7 · plain
- Findingown data§ ABSTRACT · p. 1
Total cost including search is 14.6% lower than that of Meta-Harness.
“For the reported configurations, aggregate test-time cost is 44.2% lower than that of Meta-Harness, while total cost including search is 14.6% lower.”
- Also stated in: § 5.4 COST AND REUSE OF OPTIMIZED HARNESSES · p. 8 · plain
“Across the four reported workloads, MESH-Harness reduces search-plus-test expenditure from $195.0537 to $166.6078 (14.6%) and test-only expenditure from $3.5528 to $1.9835 (44.2%).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 5.4 COST AND REUSE OF OPTIMIZED HARNESSES · p. 8 · plain
- Findingown data§ 5.2 PERFORMANCE UNDER A FIXED EVALUATION CAP · p. 7
MESH-Harness achieves the highest reported score on each of the four aggregate metrics.
“MESH-Harness achieves the highest reported score on each of the four aggregate metrics (Table 1 and Figure 2).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 5.2 PERFORMANCE UNDER A FIXED EVALUATION CAP · p. 7
MESH-Harness exceeds the handcrafted reference on LiveCodeBench (77.00 versus 71.00).
“MESH-Harness exceeds the handcrafted references on LiveCodeBench (77.00 versus 71.00) and ScienceWorld (58.10 versus 55.50).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Findingown data§ 5.2 PERFORMANCE UNDER A FIXED EVALUATION CAP · p. 7
MESH-Harness exceeds the handcrafted reference on ScienceWorld (58.10 versus 55.50).
“MESH-Harness exceeds the handcrafted references on LiveCodeBench (77.00 versus 71.00) and ScienceWorld (58.10 versus 55.50).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 5.4 COST AND REUSE OF OPTIMIZED HARNESSES · p. 8
Across the four reported workloads, MESH-Harness reduces test-only expenditure from $3.5528 to $1.9835 (44.2%).
“Across the four reported workloads, MESH-Harness reduces search-plus-test expenditure from $195.0537 to $166.6078 (14.6%) and test-only expenditure from $3.5528 to $1.9835 (44.2%).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ ABSTRACT · p. 1
MESH-Harness outperforms Meta-Harness on interactive scientific tasks (ScienceWorld) by 5.00 points under matched candidate-evaluation budgets.
“On text tasks, retrieval-augmented mathematical reasoning, code generation, and interactive scientific tasks, MESH-Harness outperforms Meta-Harness by 5.70, 7.01, 2.00, and 5.00 points, respectively, under matched candidate-evaluation budgets.”
- Also stated in: § 5.2 PERFORMANCE UNDER A FIXED EVALUATION CAP · p. 7 · plain
“Relative to Meta-Harness, the gains are 5.70 points on Text, 7.01 on Math, 2.00 on LiveCodeBench, and 5.00 on ScienceWorld.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 5.2 PERFORMANCE UNDER A FIXED EVALUATION CAP · p. 7 · plain
- Findingown data§ 5.3 CONTRIBUTIONS OF SELECTION AND EVOLUTION · p. 8
Restoring trace access adds a further 2.53 points.
“Refreshing them without historical traces, while retaining pool refresh and bandit statistics, recovers 2.60 points; restoring trace access adds a further 2.53.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ ABSTRACT · p. 1
For the reported configurations, aggregate test-time cost is 44.2% lower than that of Meta-Harness.
“For the reported configurations, aggregate test-time cost is 44.2% lower than that of Meta-Harness, while total cost including search is 14.6% lower.”
- Also stated in: § 5.4 COST AND REUSE OF OPTIMIZED HARNESSES · p. 8 · plain
“Across the four reported workloads, MESH-Harness reduces search-plus-test expenditure from $195.0537 to $166.6078 (14.6%) and test-only expenditure from $3.5528 to $1.9835 (44.2%).”
- Also stated in: § 6 CONCLUSION · p. 9 · plain
“For the reported configurations, aggregate test-time cost is 44.2% lower than that of Meta-Harness, and combined search-and-test expenditure is 14.6% lower.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 5.4 COST AND REUSE OF OPTIMIZED HARNESSES · p. 8 · plain
- Findingown data§ 5.3 CONTRIBUTIONS OF SELECTION AND EVOLUTION · p. 7
Removing only the UCB uncertainty term (α=0), while retaining predicted reward, coverage, and lineage terms, yields 51.70.
“Removing only the UCB uncertainty term ( α = 0 ), while retaining predicted reward, coverage, and lineage terms, yields 51.70.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 5.3 CONTRIBUTIONS OF SELECTION AND EVOLUTION · p. 8
Refreshing pools without historical traces, while retaining pool refresh and bandit statistics, recovers 2.60 points.
“Refreshing them without historical traces, while retaining pool refresh and bandit statistics, recovers 2.60 points; restoring trace access adds a further 2.53.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 5.2 PERFORMANCE UNDER A FIXED EVALUATION CAP · p. 7
OlympiadBench reaches 63.00 (+4.30).
“Both math subsets improve: OlympiadBench reaches 63.00 ( +4 . 30 ), and MathArena reaches 43.10 ( +9 . 80 ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 5.2 PERFORMANCE UNDER A FIXED EVALUATION CAP · p. 7
MathArena reaches 43.10 (+9.80).
“Both math subsets improve: OlympiadBench reaches 63.00 ( +4 . 30 ), and MathArena reaches 43.10 ( +9 . 80 ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 5.4 COST AND REUSE OF OPTIMIZED HARNESSES · p. 8
Across the four reported workloads, MESH-Harness reduces search-plus-test expenditure from $195.0537 to $166.6078 (14.6%).
“Across the four reported workloads, MESH-Harness reduces search-plus-test expenditure from $195.0537 to $166.6078 (14.6%) and test-only expenditure from $3.5528 to $1.9835 (44.2%).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ ABSTRACT · p. 1
MESH-Harness outperforms Meta-Harness on text tasks by 5.70 points under matched candidate-evaluation budgets.
“On text tasks, retrieval-augmented mathematical reasoning, code generation, and interactive scientific tasks, MESH-Harness outperforms Meta-Harness by 5.70, 7.01, 2.00, and 5.00 points, respectively, under matched candidate-evaluation budgets.”
- Also stated in: § 5.2 PERFORMANCE UNDER A FIXED EVALUATION CAP · p. 7 · plain
“Relative to Meta-Harness, the gains are 5.70 points on Text, 7.01 on Math, 2.00 on LiveCodeBench, and 5.00 on ScienceWorld.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 5.2 PERFORMANCE UNDER A FIXED EVALUATION CAP · p. 7 · plain
- Findingown data§ ABSTRACT · p. 1
Iterative harness optimization improves MESH-Harness by 5.63-7.79 points over its first-round configurations.
“Iterative harness optimization improves MESH-Harness by 5.63-7.79 points over its first-round configurations.”
- Also stated in: § 5.2 PERFORMANCE UNDER A FIXED EVALUATION CAP · p. 7 · plain
“Figure 3 shows that MESH-Harness improves by 5.63-7.79 points over its first evaluated compositions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 5.2 PERFORMANCE UNDER A FIXED EVALUATION CAP · p. 7 · plain
- Findingown data§ ABSTRACT · p. 1
MESH-Harness outperforms Meta-Harness on retrieval-augmented mathematical reasoning by 7.01 points under matched candidate-evaluation budgets.
“On text tasks, retrieval-augmented mathematical reasoning, code generation, and interactive scientific tasks, MESH-Harness outperforms Meta-Harness by 5.70, 7.01, 2.00, and 5.00 points, respectively, under matched candidate-evaluation budgets.”
- Also stated in: § 5.2 PERFORMANCE UNDER A FIXED EVALUATION CAP · p. 7 · plain
“Relative to Meta-Harness, the gains are 5.70 points on Text, 7.01 on Math, 2.00 on LiveCodeBench, and 5.00 on ScienceWorld.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 5.2 PERFORMANCE UNDER A FIXED EVALUATION CAP · p. 7 · plain
- Findingown data§ 6 CONCLUSION · p. 9
Combined search-and-test expenditure is 14.6% lower than that of Meta-Harness.
“For the reported configurations, aggregate test-time cost is 44.2% lower than that of Meta-Harness, and combined search-and-test expenditure is 14.6% lower.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning§ A.3 MONOTONICITY AND COMPUTATIONAL COST OF COORDINATE SEARCH · p. 14
If the procedure is continued using only strict improving moves, it terminates at a coordinate-wise maximizer on a finite product space.
“If the procedure is continued using only strict improving moves, it terminates at a coordinate-wise maximizer on a finite product space.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning§ A.1 HOW ONE EVALUATION INFORMS OTHER COMPOSITIONS · p. 13
A new implementation is encoded in the existing feature space, so it can be scored immediately with the accumulated (A,b).
“A new implementation is encoded in the existing feature space, so it can be scored immediately with the accumulated ( A,b ) .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 6 CONCLUSION · p. 9
Further experiments on these tasks show transfer across execution models.
“Text ablations support both guided selection and module evolution, while further experiments on these tasks show transfer across execution models and gains from refining a Meta-Harness solution.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning§ A.4 DECOMPOSING UNCERTAINTY AND APPROXIMATE SELECTION · p. 14
Coverage, lineage, and similarity adjustments modify evaluation priorities while leaving the observed rewards unchanged.
“Coverage, lineage, and similarity adjustments modify evaluation priorities while leaving the observed rewards unchanged.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 6 CONCLUSION · p. 9
Further experiments on these tasks show gains from refining a Meta-Harness solution.
“Text ablations support both guided selection and module evolution, while further experiments on these tasks show transfer across execution models and gains from refining a Meta-Harness solution.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning§ A.3 MONOTONICITY AND COMPUTATIONAL COST OF COORDINATE SEARCH · p. 14
If each coordinate update includes the currently selected module among its choices and selects an acquisition maximizer, the acquisition is nondecreasing over the coordinate updates.
“If each coordinate update includes the currently selected module among its choices and selects an acquisition maximizer, the acquisition is nondecreasing over the coordinate updates.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning§ A.2 THE ROLE OF FULL COVARIANCE IN COMPOSITIONAL UNCERTAINTY · p. 14
Repeatedly observing the same pairing resolves the common direction but provides no information about the orthogonal contrast.
“Repeatedly observing the same pairing resolves the common direction but provides no information about the orthogonal contrast.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning§ A.1 HOW ONE EVALUATION INFORMS OTHER COMPOSITIONS · p. 13
An evaluation changes another composition's prediction through its overlap with the evaluated direction in the A^{-1} geometry, not merely through exact module identity.
“An evaluation changes another composition's prediction through its overlap with the evaluated direction in the A -1 geometry, not merely through exact module identity.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 6 CONCLUSION · p. 9
MESH-Harness achieves the highest aggregate scores among the evaluated methods across four task domains.
“Across four task domains, it achieves the highest aggregate scores among the evaluated methods and outperforms Meta-Harness under matched candidate-evaluation budgets.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 6 CONCLUSION · p. 9
MESH-Harness outperforms Meta-Harness under matched candidate-evaluation budgets.
“Across four task domains, it achieves the highest aggregate scores among the evaluated methods and outperforms Meta-Harness under matched candidate-evaluation budgets.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 5.2 PERFORMANCE UNDER A FIXED EVALUATION CAP · p. 7
The final performance is not simply inherited from the first composition.
“These results establish that the final performance is not simply inherited from the first composition.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 1
Optimizing the harness offers a way to improve an agent without updating model weights.
“Because the harness governs how model calls work together, optimizing it offers a way to improve an agent without updating model weights.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 5.4 COST AND REUSE OF OPTIMIZED HARNESSES · p. 8
The final score improvements do not rely on more expensive execution of the selected harnesses.
“The final score improvements therefore do not rely on more expensive execution of the selected harnesses.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisereasoning§ 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 1
Evaluating a harness can be much more expensive than proposing it.
“The difficulty is that evaluating a harness can be much more expensive than proposing it.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Lee et al., 2026
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning§ A.2 THE ROLE OF FULL COVARIANCE IN COMPOSITIONAL UNCERTAINTY · p. 14
The distinction is useful for evaluation allocation: exposure to individual modules and exposure to their joint directions are different forms of information.
“The distinction is useful for evaluation allocation: exposure to individual modules and exposure to their joint directions are different forms of information.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ A.1 HOW ONE EVALUATION INFORMS OTHER COMPOSITIONS · p. 13
This separation between the feasible set and the statistical state is what allows the pools to evolve without restarting the surrogate.
“This separation between the feasible set and the statistical state is what allows the pools to evolve without restarting the surrogate.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ A.2 THE ROLE OF FULL COVARIANCE IN COMPOSITIONAL UNCERTAINTY · p. 14
In a compositional search, frequent exposure of each module need not imply that a different pairing is well understood.
“In a compositional search, this matters when modules have repeatedly appeared with the same partners: frequent exposure of each module need not imply that a different pairing is well understood.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ Reuse of an existing optimized harness. · p. 9
Compositional refinement can build on an existing optimizer's output, not only on MESH-Harness's own initialization.
“Compositional refinement can therefore build on an existing optimizer's output, not only on MESH-Harness's own initialization.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ D.4 SCIENCEWORLD: PLANNING WITH OBSERVED PRECONDITIONS · p. 26
A new planning policy can be evaluated and reused while the surrounding evidence, ranking, guard, and recovery implementations remain available for recombination.
“A new planning policy can therefore be evaluated and reused while the surrounding evidence, ranking, guard, and recovery implementations remain available for recombination.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ D.5 REUSE, SELECTION, AND EVOLUTION IN THE FINAL PROGRAMS · p. 26
Stable interfaces allow these control policies to be stored and recombined without prescribing a single reasoning workflow.
“Stable interfaces allow these control policies to be stored and recombined without prescribing a single reasoning workflow.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 94
- May combine two claims. 65
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisecitation§ 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 1AutoHarness synthesizes action validators and policy code through iterative refinement using environment feedback.
“AutoHarness synthesizes action validators and policy code through iterative refinement using environment feedback (Lou et al., 2026).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Lou et al., 2026 source
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 5.4 COST AND REUSE OF OPTIMIZED HARNESSES · p. 8Both costs are lower on every task; the largest test-time savings occur on LiveCodeBench (27.0%) and ScienceWorld (59.5%).
“Both costs are lower on every task; the largest test-time savings occur on LiveCodeBench (27.0%) and ScienceWorld (59.5%).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 5.2 PERFORMANCE UNDER A FIXED EVALUATION CAP · p. 7MESH-Harness exceeds the strongest fixed references by 6.33 points on Text and 10.83 on Math.
“MESH-Harness exceeds the strongest fixed references by 6.33 points on Text and 10.83 on Math (Tables 2-3).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 5.2 PERFORMANCE UNDER A FIXED EVALUATION CAP · p. 7The text improvement over Meta-Harness is driven by LawBench (+8.00) and USPTO (+11.00), offsetting a decrease on Symptom-to-Diagnosis (84.90 to 83.00).
“The text improvement over Meta-Harness is driven by LawBench ( +8 . 00 ) and USPTO ( +11 . 00 ), offsetting a decrease on Symptom-to-Diagnosis (84.90 to 83.00).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 5.2 PERFORMANCE UNDER A FIXED EVALUATION CAP · p. 7MESH-Harness is particularly strong on Text and ScienceWorld, while reaching the performance level of the strongest Math competitor, DGM-H (53.21 versus 53.00).
“MESH-Harness is particularly strong on Text and ScienceWorld, while reaching the performance level of the strongest Math competitor, DGM-H (53.21 versus 53.00).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 5.3 CONTRIBUTIONS OF SELECTION AND EVOLUTION · p. 8Keeping the initial pools for all slots fixed yields 51.20, a 5.13-point drop.
“Keeping the initial pools for all slots fixed yields 51.20, a 5.13-point drop (Table 5).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 5.2 PERFORMANCE UNDER A FIXED EVALUATION CAP · p. 7On ScienceWorld, MESH-Harness rises from 51.90 to 58.10, despite beginning below the handcrafted reference at 55.50.
“On ScienceWorld, it rises from 51.90 to 58.10, despite beginning below the handcrafted reference at 55.50.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 5.3 CONTRIBUTIONS OF SELECTION AND EVOLUTION · p. 7Performance increases from α=0 to 0.8 and then falls at 1.6, favoring a moderate exploration bonus among the tested values.
“Performance increases from α = 0 to 0 . 8 and then falls at 1 . 6 (Figure 4), favoring a moderate exploration bonus among the tested values.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ A.3 MONOTONICITY AND COMPUTATIONAL COST OF COORDINATE SEARCH · p. 14The dense statistical state occupies O(p^2) space; with a cached inverse, a rank-one update and a quadratic-form score each require O(p^2) arithmetic.
“The dense statistical state occupies O ( p 2 ) space. With a cached inverse, a rank-one update and a quadratic-form score each require O ( p 2 ) arithmetic; the agent implementation uses this update.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ D.2 MATH: COMPACT PROBLEM CONTEXT AND EXACT-ANSWER DISCIPLINE · p. 24The selected Math combination centers on the requested mathematical quantity and its output form.
“The selected combination centers on the requested mathematical quantity and its output form.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ D.2 MATH: COMPACT PROBLEM CONTEXT AND EXACT-ANSWER DISCIPLINE · p. 24Its analyzer distinguishes counting, finding all solutions, extremal questions, and exact-value questions, then extracts constraints and corresponding obligations.
“Its analyzer distinguishes counting, finding all solutions, extremal questions, and exact-value questions, then extracts constraints and corresponding obligations.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 5.4 COST AND REUSE OF OPTIMIZED HARNESSES · p. 9Among the measured configurations, MESH-Harness's DeepSeek and Sonnet variants are the two nondominated points, offering the lowest cost and highest score, respectively.
“Among the measured configurations, its DeepSeek and Sonnet variants are the two nondominated points (Figure 5), offering the lowest cost and highest score, respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingreasoning§ A.1 HOW ONE EVALUATION INFORMS OTHER COMPOSITIONS · p. 13Retiring an implementation changes the feasible set of compositions but does not invalidate the stored observations.
“Retiring an implementation changes the feasible set of compositions but does not invalidate the stored observations.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingreasoning§ A.2 THE ROLE OF FULL COVARIANCE IN COMPOSITIONAL UNCERTAINTY · p. 13Full covariance does not introduce explicit pairwise reward features; rather, its off-diagonal blocks retain which slot representations have been observed together.
“Full covariance does not introduce explicit pairwise reward features. Rather, its off-diagonal blocks retain which slot representations have been observed together:”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 6 CONCLUSION · p. 9Text ablations support both guided selection and module evolution.
“Text ablations support both guided selection and module evolution, while further experiments on these tasks show transfer across execution models and gains from refining a Meta-Harness solution.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ D.1 TEXT: EVIDENCE COMPOSITION WITH EXPLICIT ANSWER CONTRACTS · p. 24A JSON field carries the final answer, with separate rules for a complete label, a combination of labels, or a structured string.
“A JSON field carries the final answer, with separate rules for a complete label, a combination of labels, or a structured string.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ D.1 TEXT: EVIDENCE COMPOSITION WITH EXPLICIT ANSWER CONTRACTS · p. 24The composer displays at most four supplied examples and adds a short 'Decisive difference' annotation to each: features shared with the query but absent from the other displayed cases are identified explicitly.
“The composer displays at most four supplied examples and adds a short 'Decisive difference' annotation to each: features shared with the query but absent from the other displayed cases are identified explicitly.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ D.1 TEXT: EVIDENCE COMPOSITION WITH EXPLICIT ANSWER CONTRACTS · p. 24The Text harness separates seven decisions: maintaining training examples, defining the answer space, retrieving evidence, composing context, allocating computation, checking the response, and extracting the final answer.
“The Text harness separates seven decisions: maintaining training examples, defining the answer space, retrieving evidence, composing context, allocating computation, checking the response, and extracting the final answer.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingreasoning§ A.3 MONOTONICITY AND COMPUTATIONAL COST OF COORDINATE SEARCH · p. 14These counts concern inexpensive surrogate comparisons, not benchmark executions; only the selected complete harness consumes a candidate-evaluation slot.
“These counts concern inexpensive surrogate comparisons, not benchmark executions. Only the selected complete harness consumes a candidate-evaluation slot.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Findingreasoning§ A.3 MONOTONICITY AND COMPUTATIONAL COST OF COORDINATE SEARCH · p. 14For slot pool sizes N1,...,Nk and S sweeps, the coordinate comparisons require S∑j Nj acquisition evaluations, plus final scoring and any start-selection or duplicate-handling overhead.
“For slot pool sizes N 1 , . . . , N k and S sweeps, the coordinate comparisons require S ∑ j N j acquisition evaluations, plus final scoring and any start-selection or duplicate-handling overhead.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ D.1 TEXT: EVIDENCE COMPOSITION WITH EXPLICIT ANSWER CONTRACTS · p. 24The retriever ranks examples using weighted feature overlap, input-length proximity, and script-dependent features, while suppressing near-duplicates and repeated answer labels.
“The retriever ranks examples using weighted feature overlap, input-length proximity, and script-dependent features, while suppressing near-duplicates and repeated answer labels.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingreasoning§ A.4 DECOMPOSING UNCERTAINTY AND APPROXIMATE SELECTION · p. 15It is a conditional statement under Eq. (18); the empirical α is a search coefficient rather than an asserted calibrated confidence radius.
“It is a conditional statement under Eq. (18); the empirical α is a search coefficient rather than an asserted calibrated confidence radius.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The surrogate satisfies the uniform confidence envelope (Eq. 18) for some q_t ≥ 0.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ D.1 TEXT: EVIDENCE COMPOSITION WITH EXPLICIT ANSWER CONTRACTS · p. 24The budget policy identifies the requested answer type from the input and stored examples, allowing downstream components to preserve the semantics of each task.
“The budget policy identifies the requested answer type from the input and stored examples, allowing downstream components to preserve the semantics of each task.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ D.1 TEXT: EVIDENCE COMPOSITION WITH EXPLICIT ANSWER CONTRACTS · p. 24The selected memory module removes exact input-target duplicates and, when its pool exceeds capacity, preferentially removes redundant examples from large signature groups.
“The selected memory module removes exact input-target duplicates and, when its pool exceeds capacity, preferentially removes redundant examples from large signature groups.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ D.2 MATH: COMPACT PROBLEM CONTEXT AND EXACT-ANSWER DISCIPLINE · p. 24The Math harness contains seven slots for query analysis, budget allocation, retrieval, context composition, solving, verification, and answer parsing.
“The Math harness contains seven slots for query analysis, budget allocation, retrieval, context composition, solving, verification, and answer parsing.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingreasoning§ A.3 MONOTONICITY AND COMPUTATIONAL COST OF COORDINATE SEARCH · p. 14With Nj=10 and S=2, this is 140 coordinate comparisons instead of 10^7 for the seven-slot tasks, and 100 instead of 10^5 for the five-slot ScienceWorld controller.
“With N j = 10 and S = 2 , this is 140 coordinate comparisons instead of 10 7 for the seven-slot tasks, and 100 instead of 10 5 for the five-slot ScienceWorld controller.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ Math: compact context and exact answers · p. 25The verifier checks specific completion defects, including a missing answer after truncation and an unresolved symbol where a definite result is requested.
“The verifier checks specific completion defects, including a missing answer after truncation and an unresolved symbol where a definite result is requested.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ Math: compact context and exact answers · p. 25The parser first uses explicit answer fields, then applies answer-region and exact-form fallback rules.
“The parser first uses explicit answer fields, then applies answer-region and exact-form fallback rules.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ Reuse of an existing optimized harness. · p. 9Starting from a Meta-Harness solution, 20 additional MESH-Harness evaluations improve the text macro-average from 50.63 to 54.37, with gains on all three datasets.
“Starting from a Meta-Harness solution, 20 additional MESH-Harness evaluations improve the text macro-average from 50.63 to 54.37, with gains on all three datasets (Table 8).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Findingreasoning§ A.3 MONOTONICITY AND COMPUTATIONAL COST OF COORDINATE SEARCH · p. 14Exhaustive comparison would require ∏j Nj evaluations.
“Exhaustive comparison would require ∏ j N j evaluations.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ D.1 TEXT: EVIDENCE COMPOSITION WITH EXPLICIT ANSWER CONTRACTS · p. 24A shared answer contract connects these decisions across single-label prediction, multi-label prediction, and structured-string generation.
“A shared answer contract connects these decisions across single-label prediction, multi-label prediction, and structured-string generation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ B.2 MIXED-START COMPOSITION SELECTION · p. 17Novelty is a tie breaker, not an additional reward, and bounded random sampling is the duplicate fallback rather than an exhaustive search for an unseen composition.
“Novelty is a tie breaker, not an additional reward, and bounded random sampling is the duplicate fallback rather than an exhaustive search for an unseen composition.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ D.2 MATH: COMPACT PROBLEM CONTEXT AND EXACT-ANSWER DISCIPLINE · p. 24The selected composer does not insert the retrieved passages, even though retrieval is available through the task interface.
“It does not insert the retrieved passages, even though retrieval is available through the task interface.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingreasoning§ D.2 MATH: COMPACT PROBLEM CONTEXT AND EXACT-ANSWER DISCIPLINE · p. 24The resulting prompt keeps the problem, its constraints, and the required form of the answer together.
“Here, the resulting prompt keeps the problem, its constraints, and the required form of the answer together.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingreasoning§ A.1 HOW ONE EVALUATION INFORMS OTHER COMPOSITIONS · p. 13Its creation does not add an observation, and it receives neither its parent's reward nor a synthetic reward.
“Its creation does not add an observation, and it receives neither its parent's reward nor a synthetic reward.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Findingnone given§ D.1 TEXT: EVIDENCE COMPOSITION WITH EXPLICIT ANSWER CONTRACTS · p. 24Structured strings remain open-ended outputs rather than entries in a finite label inventory.
“Structured strings, for example, remain open-ended outputs rather than entries in a finite label inventory.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ D.2 MATH: COMPACT PROBLEM CONTEXT AND EXACT-ANSWER DISCIPLINE · p. 24The selected composer preserves the complete problem and adds compact planning notes and an exact-answer contract.
“The selected composer preserves the complete problem and adds compact planning notes and an exact-answer contract.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 5.4 COST AND REUSE OF OPTIMIZED HARNESSES · p. 9Including the default executor, MESH-Harness retains a 4.36-5.70-point advantage and a 2.8-7.2% cost reduction across all four execution models.
“Including the default executor, MESH-Harness retains a 4.36-5.70-point advantage and a 2.8-7.2% cost reduction across all four models (Table 7).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Findingreasoning§ B.2 MIXED-START COMPOSITION SELECTION · p. 17The evaluated composition is in the active product space in either case.
“The evaluated composition is in the active product space in either case.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ A.4 DECOMPOSING UNCERTAINTY AND APPROXIMATE SELECTION · p. 15Pool refresh changes the feasible set without resetting the statistical state; protecting the incumbent preserves an already evaluated configuration, while retaining historical embeddings allows subsequent selection to reuse all completed observations.
“Pool refresh changes the feasible set without resetting the statistical state. Protecting the incumbent preserves an already evaluated configuration, while retaining historical embeddings allows subsequent selection to reuse all completed observations.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingreasoning§ A.1 HOW ONE EVALUATION INFORMS OTHER COMPOSITIONS · p. 13Uncertainty cannot increase at a fixed vector after an observation, and its reduction is largest along directions coupled to the evaluated composition.
“Uncertainty cannot increase at a fixed vector after an observation, and its reduction is largest along directions coupled to the evaluated composition.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingreasoning§ D.2 MATH: COMPACT PROBLEM CONTEXT AND EXACT-ANSWER DISCIPLINE · p. 24These obligations include completeness for a solution set, or an attaining construction and a matching bound for an extremum.
“These include completeness for a solution set, or an attaining construction and a matching bound for an extremum.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingreasoning§ A.4 DECOMPOSING UNCERTAINTY AND APPROXIMATE SELECTION · p. 15Equation (19) separates three sources of selection error: uncertainty in the chosen composition, the range of the acquisition adjustment, and the gap left by approximate search.
“Equation (19) separates three sources of selection error: uncertainty in the chosen composition, the range of the acquisition adjustment, and the gap left by approximate search.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The surrogate satisfies the uniform confidence envelope (Eq. 18) for some q_t ≥ 0.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ D.1 TEXT: EVIDENCE COMPOSITION WITH EXPLICIT ANSWER CONTRACTS · p. 24For structured strings, the prompt requests preservation of stereochemistry, charges, and ring closures.
“For the latter, the prompt requests preservation of stereochemistry, charges, and ring closures.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ Math: compact context and exact answers · p. 25For long derivations, the solver requests forward progress without repeated restarts and a complete answer once a defensible value is available.
“For long derivations it requests forward progress without repeated restarts and a complete answer once a defensible value is available.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ Math: compact context and exact answers · p. 25The solver adds a problem-dependent instruction: maintain a ledger when many named quantities occur, substitute explicitly given numerical constants when applicable, or proceed through the governing identity.
“The solver adds a problem-dependent instruction: maintain a ledger when many named quantities occur, substitute explicitly given numerical constants when applicable, or proceed through the governing identity.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ D.4 SCIENCEWORLD: PLANNING WITH OBSERVED PRECONDITIONS · p. 26The planner constructs an ordered chain of preconditions: perform a permitted focus action, navigate toward an absent target, inspect a visible object's exact identity, establish a missing circuit element, measure an unresolved property, or execute a report branch supported by an observation.
“The planner constructs an ordered chain of preconditions: perform a permitted focus action, navigate toward an absent target, inspect a visible object's exact identity, establish a missing circuit element, measure an unresolved property, or execute a report branch supported by an observation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ D.3 LIVECODEBENCH: COMPLEMENTARY DRAFTS AND FAILURE-DIRECTED REPAIR · p. 25The analyzer extracts the entry-point contract, requested output, input-size bounds, and boundary conditions.
“The analyzer extracts the entry-point contract, requested output, input-size bounds, and boundary conditions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ D.4 SCIENCEWORLD: PLANNING WITH OBSERVED PRECONDITIONS · p. 26When progress stalls, the planner can move to a less-attempted later precondition from its chain.
“When progress stalls, the planner can move to a less-attempted later precondition from its chain.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Findingnone given§ D.3 LIVECODEBENCH: COMPLEMENTARY DRAFTS AND FAILURE-DIRECTED REPAIR · p. 25Each draft is evaluated on the public tests.
“Each draft is evaluated on the public tests.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ D.3 LIVECODEBENCH: COMPLEMENTARY DRAFTS AND FAILURE-DIRECTED REPAIR · p. 25The repair prompt includes a small set of failing rows, requests preservation of passing behavior, and warns against special-casing public examples.
“Its prompt includes a small set of failing rows, requests preservation of passing behavior, and warns against special-casing public examples.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ D.4 SCIENCEWORLD: PLANNING WITH OBSERVED PRECONDITIONS · p. 26The focus guard and recovery module check proposed actions through their own interfaces.
“The focus guard and recovery module then check proposed actions through their own interfaces.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ D.3 LIVECODEBENCH: COMPLEMENTARY DRAFTS AND FAILURE-DIRECTED REPAIR · p. 25The feedback interface retains the evidence needed for this comparison, including outputs and failures for individual public-test rows.
“The feedback interface retains the evidence needed for this comparison, including outputs and failures for individual public-test rows.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ D.5 REUSE, SELECTION, AND EVOLUTION IN THE FINAL PROGRAMS · p. 26Retention and evolution operate at the level of individual slots, while evaluation measures the behavior of the assembled program.
“Retention and evolution operate at the level of individual slots, while evaluation measures the behavior of the assembled program.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The fixed-capacity pool with lexicographic eviction preserves the most useful modules.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ D.3 LIVECODEBENCH: COMPLEMENTARY DRAFTS AND FAILURE-DIRECTED REPAIR · p. 25The selected budget requests two drafts with repair enabled.
“The selected budget requests two drafts with repair enabled.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ D.3 LIVECODEBENCH: COMPLEMENTARY DRAFTS AND FAILURE-DIRECTED REPAIR · p. 25The LiveCodeBench harness separates problem analysis, budget selection, prompt construction, draft generation, public-test feedback, repair selection, and code parsing.
“The LiveCodeBench harness separates problem analysis, budget selection, prompt construction, draft generation, public-test feedback, repair selection, and code parsing.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ D.4 SCIENCEWORLD: PLANNING WITH OBSERVED PRECONDITIONS · p. 26The refreshed planner was selected at iterations 27, 29, 32, 35, and 36, and the final iteration-36 combination joins it with four components from the initial pool.
“The refreshed planner was selected at iterations 27, 29, 32, 35, and 36, and the final iteration36 combination joins it with four components from the initial pool.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ D.3 LIVECODEBENCH: COMPLEMENTARY DRAFTS AND FAILURE-DIRECTED REPAIR · p. 25Syntax, timeout, and runtime defects take precedence when choosing the repair instruction.
“Syntax, timeout, and runtime defects take precedence when choosing the repair instruction.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ D.4 SCIENCEWORLD: PLANNING WITH OBSERVED PRECONDITIONS · p. 26Recovery uses the same state and permission interfaces to replace an invalid or repeatedly ineffective action.
“Recovery uses the same state and permission interfaces to replace an invalid or repeatedly ineffective action.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ D.5 REUSE, SELECTION, AND EVOLUTION IN THE FINAL PROGRAMS · p. 26The final Text, Math, and LiveCodeBench harnesses each combine seven implementations from the initial pool; ScienceWorld combines four initial implementations with the refreshed planner.
“The final Text, Math, and LiveCodeBench harnesses each combine seven implementations from the initial pool; ScienceWorld combines four initial implementations with the refreshed planner.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The initial pool of LLM-generated implementations provides a sufficiently diverse and useful starting point for search.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ D.4 SCIENCEWORLD: PLANNING WITH OBSERVED PRECONDITIONS · p. 26Evidence memory records attempted actions, observed changes, score increments, locations, and focus history.
“Evidence memory records attempted actions, observed changes, score increments, locations, and focus history.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ D.3 LIVECODEBENCH: COMPLEMENTARY DRAFTS AND FAILURE-DIRECTED REPAIR · p. 25The repair selector compares failures across drafts: a failing row is local if another draft passes it, contested if the drafts produce different wrong outputs, and shared otherwise.
“The repair selector compares failures across drafts: a failing row is local if another draft passes it, contested if the drafts produce different wrong outputs, and shared otherwise.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ D.4 SCIENCEWORLD: PLANNING WITH OBSERVED PRECONDITIONS · p. 26The ScienceWorld harness uses five slots: evidence memory, goal-phase planning, action-candidate ranking, a focus guard, and recovery.
“The ScienceWorld harness uses five slots: evidence memory, goal-phase planning, action-candidate ranking, a focus guard, and recovery.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ D.3 LIVECODEBENCH: COMPLEMENTARY DRAFTS AND FAILURE-DIRECTED REPAIR · p. 25Both drafts use temperature zero, with different instructions: one models the process directly; the other is asked to re-derive the requested output quantity independently, using requirement sentences extracted from the statement when available.
“Both drafts use temperature zero, with different instructions: one models the process directly; the other is asked to re-derive the requested output quantity independently, using requirement sentences extracted from the statement when available.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ D.4 SCIENCEWORLD: PLANNING WITH OBSERVED PRECONDITIONS · p. 26The selected ScienceWorld planner was introduced at search iteration 24 by a trace-aware, failure-driven refresh targeting incomplete goals.
“It was introduced at search iteration 24 by a trace-aware, failure-driven refresh targeting incomplete goals.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Recurring validation failure groups are indicative of general failure modes that can be fixed by module proposals.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ D.4 SCIENCEWORLD: PLANNING WITH OBSERVED PRECONDITIONS · p. 26The planner converts this record into a concrete next subgoal; ranking and guard modules constrain which actions are proposed and accepted.
“The planner converts this record into a concrete next subgoal; ranking and guard modules constrain which actions are proposed and accepted.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ D.5 REUSE, SELECTION, AND EVOLUTION IN THE FINAL PROGRAMS · p. 26Across tasks, the selected programs organize different forms of evidence: comparisons among examples in Text, mathematical constraints and answer forms in Math, public-test outcomes in LiveCodeBench, and observed preconditions in ScienceWorld.
“Across tasks, the selected programs organize different forms of evidence: comparisons among examples in Text, mathematical constraints and answer forms in Math, public-test outcomes in LiveCodeBench, and observed preconditions in ScienceWorld.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ D.3 LIVECODEBENCH: COMPLEMENTARY DRAFTS AND FAILURE-DIRECTED REPAIR · p. 25The prompt distinguishes a function or class method from a standard-input program and reproduces public examples.
“The prompt distinguishes a function or class method from a standard-input program and reproduces public examples.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 1Contextual bandits use shared features to generalize from observed rewards and balance predicted performance against uncertainty.
“Contextual bandits use shared features to generalize from observed rewards and balance predicted performance against uncertainty (Li et al., 2010; Chu et al., 2011).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Li et al., 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Chu et al., 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisecitation§ 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 1Meta-Harness identifies candidate evaluation as its main computational bottleneck.
“Meta-Harness likewise identifies candidate evaluation as its main computational bottleneck (Lee et al., 2026).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Lee et al., 2026
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisecitation§ 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 1Large language models can act as agents by retrieving information, calling tools, and interacting with environments.
“Large language models (LLMs) can act as agents by retrieving information, calling tools, and interacting with environments (Yao et al., 2023).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Yao et al., 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisecitation§ 2 RELATED WORK · p. 3Feature-based bandits provide a way to allocate evaluations by sharing reward information across candidates and balancing exploitation with uncertainty-driven exploration.
“Feature-based bandits (Li et al., 2010; Chu et al., 2011) provide a way to allocate evaluations by sharing reward information across candidates and balancing exploitation with uncertainty-driven exploration.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Li et al., 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Chu et al., 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 2MASPOB selects prompt combinations using bandit-guided coordinate ascent but does not update its candidate pools.
“MASPOB selects prompt combinations using bandit-guided coordinate ascent but does not update its candidate pools (Hong et al., 2026).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Hong et al., 2026 source
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ 5.3 CONTRIBUTIONS OF SELECTION AND EVOLUTION · p. 7Guided selection without the uncertainty term improves on random selection, but still trails the full acquisition rule by 4.63 points.
“Thus, guided selection without the uncertainty term improves on random selection, but still trails the full acquisition rule by 4.63 points.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 1Both AutoHarness and Meta-Harness make the surrounding program an object of optimization rather than a fixed implementation.
“Both approaches make the surrounding program an object of optimization rather than a fixed implementation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 1Meta-Harness searches over task-specific Python programs, allowing a proposer agent to inspect previous candidates' code, scores, and execution traces.
“Meta-Harness searches over task-specific Python programs, allowing a proposer agent to inspect previous candidates' code, scores, and execution traces (Lee et al., 2026).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Lee et al., 2026
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisereasoning§ 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 1The harness governs how model calls work together.
“Because the harness governs how model calls work together, optimizing it offers a way to improve an agent without updating model weights.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ 5.2 PERFORMANCE UNDER A FIXED EVALUATION CAP · p. 7The advantage of MESH-Harness spans context construction, retrieval, execution feedback, and sequential interaction without changing the execution model.
“The advantage therefore spans context construction, retrieval, execution feedback, and sequential interaction without changing the execution model.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone given§ 4.3 TRACE-DRIVEN MODULE EVOLUTION · p. 6The final harness is chosen by the prespecified validation criterion and its implementations are frozen for testing.
“The final harness is chosen by the prespecified validation criterion and its implementations are frozen for testing.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone given§ 5.1 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP · p. 6Meta-Harness evaluates 20 × 2 candidates, and MESH-Harness evaluates 40 × 1 compositions.
“Meta-Harness evaluates 20 × 2 candidates, and MESH-Harness evaluates 40 × 1 compositions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone given§ 4.3 TRACE-DRIVEN MODULE EVOLUTION · p. 6Generation and embedding costs count toward search expenditure; deployment executes only the selected harness, without further search.
“Generation and embedding costs count toward search expenditure; deployment executes only the selected harness, without further search.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone given§ C.2 MEMORY AND INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO EACH HARNESS · p. 21Retrieved solutions belong to the external corpus; development and test solutions are not added to it.
“Retrieved solutions belong to the external corpus; development and test solutions are not added to it.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone given§ 5.1 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP · p. 6All reported test scores are means over three test runs of the same frozen harness.
“All reported test scores are means over three test runs of the same frozen harness.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone given§ REPRODUCIBILITY STATEMENT · p. 10All comparisons use the shared task splits and scoring protocols described in the paper.
“All comparisons use the shared task splits and scoring protocols described in the paper.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone given§ C.2 MEMORY AND INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO EACH HARNESS · p. 21A candidate's verifier can inspect and refine an answer using the available context, but cannot consult the reference answer.
“A candidate's verifier can inspect and refine an answer using the available context, but cannot consult the reference answer.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone given§ 5.1 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP · p. 6Search and final harness selection use validation data; the selected implementations are frozen before held-out testing.
“Search and final harness selection use validation data; the selected implementations are frozen before held-out testing.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone given§ C.5 FINAL SELECTION AND COST ACCOUNTING · p. 23The selected code, executor settings, and retrieval resources are fixed before testing.
“The selected code, executor settings, and retrieval resources are fixed before testing.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Validation performance predicts held-out test performance for the selected harness.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone given§ C.1 DATASETS AND RETRIEVAL RESOURCES · p. 20The development and test questions are disjoint, and answers are evaluated by the corresponding source-specific programmatic graders.
“The development and test questions are disjoint, and answers are evaluated by the corresponding source-specific programmatic graders.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone given§ C.1 DATASETS AND RETRIEVAL RESOURCES · p. 20The corpus is filtered against the evaluation questions and deduplicated before search; the same corpus is used for validation and testing.
“The corpus is filtered against the evaluation questions and deduplicated before search; the same corpus is used for validation and testing.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone given§ C.1 DATASETS AND RETRIEVAL RESOURCES · p. 20A harness can use public examples to test and repair its program; private tests are reserved for final scoring.
“A harness can use public examples to test and repair its program; private tests are reserved for final scoring.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Public test cases are informative for repairing code such that private test performance improves.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone given§ B.4 ADMISSIBILITY, HISTORY CONSTRUCTION, AND FROZEN EXECUTION · p. 19Each record retains its originating evaluation and component identities, so the proposer can distinguish an observed result from the stated intent of an untested edit.
“Each record retains its originating evaluation and component identities, so the proposer can distinguish an observed result from the stated intent of an untested edit.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The LLM proposer can generate valid and useful modules from the bounded history context.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationreasoning§ B.4 ADMISSIBILITY, HISTORY CONSTRUCTION, AND FROZEN EXECUTION · p. 19Reuse does not require assigning an inherited or synthetic reward to a new implementation.
“This is the operational counterpart of Proposition A.1: reuse does not require assigning an inherited or synthetic reward to a new implementation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone given§ B.4 ADMISSIBILITY, HISTORY CONSTRUCTION, AND FROZEN EXECUTION · p. 19Initialization and refresh share the same admissibility principle: a candidate must implement its assigned responsibility and be executable through the declared interface.
“Initialization and refresh share the same admissibility principle: a candidate must implement its assigned responsibility and be executable through the declared interface.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone given§ 5.1 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP · p. 6All methods use the same splits.
“All methods use the same splits (Appendix C.1).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone given§ C.3 SEARCH SETTINGS AND EXECUTION LIMITS · p. 21Executor identity and scoring remain fixed while the optimizer changes module implementations.
“Executor identity and scoring remain fixed while the optimizer changes module implementations.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ A.1 HOW ONE EVALUATION INFORMS OTHER COMPOSITIONS · p. 13This is surrogate-level information transfer; it is not an assignment of the observed reward to every selected module as an independent contribution.
“This is surrogate-level information transfer; it is not an assignment of the observed reward to every selected module as an independent contribution.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone given§ C.2 MEMORY AND INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO EACH HARNESS · p. 21Held-out answers remain with the evaluator throughout execution.
“Held-out answers remain with the evaluator throughout execution.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone given§ 3 PRELIMINARIES · p. 4Test data are not used for generation, selection, or stopping.
“Test data are not used for generation, selection, or stopping.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Interpretationreasoning§ D.1 TEXT: EVIDENCE COMPOSITION WITH EXPLICIT ANSWER CONTRACTS · p. 24An example is useful to the solver only through the context and decision rules with which it is presented.
“These connected choices make complete-program evaluation relevant: an example is useful to the solver only through the context and decision rules with which it is presented.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone given§ B.4 ADMISSIBILITY, HISTORY CONSTRUCTION, AND FROZEN EXECUTION · p. 19CHECK in Algorithm 5 combines syntax and signature validation, the permitted-capability checks, task-specific return-shape and state checks, and small execution fixtures.
“CHECK in Algorithm 5 combines syntax and signature validation, the permitted-capability checks, task-specific return-shape and state checks, and small execution fixtures.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone given§ C.4 METRICS AND AGGREGATION · p. 22Each selected harness is frozen and evaluated three times on the same held-out data.
“Each selected harness is frozen and evaluated three times on the same held-out data.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoning§ C.2 MEMORY AND INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO EACH HARNESS · p. 21Validation and test predictions use this training-derived memory without adding held-out labels.
“Validation and test predictions use this training-derived memory without adding held-out labels.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone given§ B.1 SEARCH STATE AND COMPLETE PROCEDURE · p. 16SELECTVAL applies the prespecified validation criterion in Section C.5; neither the acquisition score nor a test score is substituted for that criterion.
“SELECTVAL applies the prespecified validation criterion in Section C.5; neither the acquisition score nor a test score is substituted for that criterion.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ D.1 TEXT: EVIDENCE COMPOSITION WITH EXPLICIT ANSWER CONTRACTS · p. 24Retrieval and composition serve complementary roles: one selects examples, while the other exposes the distinctions the model should consider.
“Retrieval and composition thus serve complementary roles: one selects examples, while the other exposes the distinctions the model should consider.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ 6 CONCLUSION · p. 9Reusing and refining implementations within fixed functional slots can improve task performance while reducing the execution cost of the resulting harnesses.
“These results show that reusing and refining implementations within fixed functional slots can improve task performance while reducing the execution cost of the resulting harnesses.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone given§ C.1 DATASETS AND RETRIEVAL RESOURCES · p. 20We use the same task-specific output and scoring rules for all harnesses.
“We use the same task-specific output and scoring rules for all harnesses.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Interpretationreasoning§ D.1 TEXT: EVIDENCE COMPOSITION WITH EXPLICIT ANSWER CONTRACTS · p. 24The optimized program joins evidence selection, comparison, and answer formatting through explicit interfaces.
“The optimized program therefore joins evidence selection, comparison, and answer formatting through explicit interfaces.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationreasoning§ B.2 MIXED-START COMPOSITION SELECTION · p. 17The monotonicity result in Proposition A.2 applies whenever the current coordinate is among the feasible replacements.
“The monotonicity result in Proposition A.2 applies whenever the current coordinate is among the feasible replacements.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Interpretationnone given§ A.4 DECOMPOSING UNCERTAINTY AND APPROXIMATE SELECTION · p. 15Coverage and lineage regularize exploration of an evolving candidate space, while coordinate search bounds the cost of comparing those candidates.
“Coverage and lineage regularize exploration of an evolving candidate space, while coordinate search bounds the cost of comparing those candidates.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The surrogate satisfies the uniform confidence envelope (Eq. 18) for some q_t ≥ 0.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone given§ B.4 ADMISSIBILITY, HISTORY CONSTRUCTION, AND FROZEN EXECUTION · p. 19CHECK rejects duplicate identifiers and duplicate implementations within the slot's historical catalog.
“It also rejects duplicate identifiers and duplicate implementations within the slot's historical catalog.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone given§ C.5 FINAL SELECTION AND COST ACCOUNTING · p. 23Each test repetition starts with fresh task memory and environment episodes.
“Each test repetition starts with fresh task memory and environment episodes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationreasoning§ D.2 MATH: COMPACT PROBLEM CONTEXT AND EXACT-ANSWER DISCIPLINE · p. 24A component may determine which available information enters the solver context.
“This is a concrete choice within the optimization space: a component may determine which available information enters the solver context.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ ABSTRACT · p. 1Combining module-level design reuse with feedback-driven compositional search can systematically improve agent harnesses while keeping overall optimization cost under control.
“These results show that combining module-level design reuse with feedback-driven compositional search can systematically improve agent harnesses while keeping overall optimization cost under control.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The four evaluated task domains are representative of agent harness applications generally.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Study design and conductnone given§ C.2 MEMORY AND INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO EACH HARNESS · p. 21Only public-test results can be used for repair.
“Only public-test results can be used for repair.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Public test cases are informative for repairing code such that private test performance improves.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone given§ C.1 DATASETS AND RETRIEVAL RESOURCES · p. 20The splits remain fixed across methods and repeated test runs.
“The splits remain fixed across methods and repeated test runs.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone given§ 5.1 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP · p. 6All optimization methods use the same execution model and a budget of 40 complete candidate evaluations per task.
“All optimization methods use the same execution model and a budget of 40 complete candidate evaluations per task.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone given§ REPRODUCIBILITY STATEMENT · p. 10Final harnesses are selected on validation data and frozen before testing; reported test scores average three executions of each frozen harness.
“Final harnesses are selected on validation data and frozen before testing; reported test scores average three executions of each frozen harness.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Interpretationreasoning§ Math: compact context and exact answers · p. 25The resulting division of labor carries the answer specification from problem analysis through derivation and final extraction, while preserving a compact solver context.
“The resulting division of labor carries the answer specification from problem analysis through derivation and final extraction, while preserving a compact solver context.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ D.3 LIVECODEBENCH: COMPLEMENTARY DRAFTS AND FAILURE-DIRECTED REPAIR · p. 25Reusable components can exchange structured execution evidence: draft generation supplies alternatives, feedback characterizes them, and repair turns those observations into a targeted instruction.
“This case illustrates how reusable components can exchange structured execution evidence: draft generation supplies alternatives, feedback characterizes them, and repair turns those observations into a targeted instruction.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ D.3 LIVECODEBENCH: COMPLEMENTARY DRAFTS AND FAILURE-DIRECTED REPAIR · p. 25The repair module can use a passing alternative to guide a local correction, or direct attention to the required output when multiple drafts disagree or fail together.
“The repair module can therefore use a passing alternative to guide a local correction, or direct attention to the required output when multiple drafts disagree or fail together.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ D.5 REUSE, SELECTION, AND EVOLUTION IN THE FINAL PROGRAMS · p. 26The pool has two roles: preserving alternatives for combination selection and admitting new implementations during search.
“Their provenance illustrates the two roles of the pool: preserving alternatives for combination selection and admitting new implementations during search.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The initial pool of LLM-generated implementations provides a sufficiently diverse and useful starting point for search.
The paper relies on this without support.
The four evaluated task domains are representative of agent harness applications generally.
“These results show that combining module-level design reuse with feedback-driven compositional search can systematically improve agent harnesses while keeping overall optimization cost under control.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The relationship between module embeddings and harness performance is adequately captured by a linear model with full covariance.
“Following linear contextual bandits (Li et al., 2010; Chu et al., 2011), we maintain shared reward statistics over configuration features.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The surrogate satisfies the uniform confidence envelope (Eq. 18) for some q_t ≥ 0.
“Consider a round on which, for some q t ≥ 0 , the surrogate satisfies the uniform envelope”
The paper relies on this without support.
Validation performance predicts held-out test performance for the selected harness.
“The final harness is selected from the validation archive.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Public test cases are informative for repairing code such that private test performance improves.
“A harness can use public examples to test and repair its program; private tests are reserved for final scoring.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Recurring validation failure groups are indicative of general failure modes that can be fixed by module proposals.
“Refresh ranks validation failure groups by recurring count and then diagnostic confidence.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The LLM proposer can generate valid and useful modules from the bounded history context.
“The proposer receives a bounded view: up to eight error groups, at most two representative examples per group, up to six related family edits, and up to three higherscoring historical trajectories for currently failed problems.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The fixed-capacity pool with lexicographic eviction preserves the most useful modules.
“Lower observed mean reward is removed first; smaller nearest-neighbor distance breaks a tie. The incumbent and new child are protected during replacement.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The bandit's reward observations are sufficient to guide selection.
“the completeharness reward r t is the observation for the bandit.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The feature space representation of modules preserves meaningful similarities for composition.
“A new module starts with zero observations and is represented immediately in the same feature space.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The initial pool of LLM-generated implementations provides a sufficiently diverse and useful starting point for search.
“Each slot starts with ten LLM-generated implementations.”
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Yasin Abbasi-Yadkori, D´ avid P´ al, and Csaba Szepesv´ ari. Improved algorithms for linear stochastic bandits. Advances in neural information processing systems , 24, 2011.
- Wei Chu, Lihong Li, Lev Reyzin, and Robert Schapire. Contextual bandits with linear payoff functions. In Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics , pp. 208-214. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2011.
- Chaoqun He, Renjie Luo, Yuzhuo Bai, Shengding Hu, Zhen Thai, Junhao Shen, Jinyi Hu, Xu Han, Yujie Huang, Yuxiang Zhang, et al. Olympiadbench: A challenging benchmark for promoting agi with olympiad-level bilingual multimodal scientific problems. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pp. 3828-3850, 2024.
- Zhiwei He, Tian Liang, Jiahao Xu, Qiuzhi Liu, Xingyu Chen, Yue Wang, Linfeng Song, Dian Yu, Zhenwen Liang, Wenxuan Wang, et al. Deepmath-103k: A large-scale, challenging, decontaminated, and verifiable mathematical dataset for advancing reasoning. In International Conference on Learning Representations , volume 2026, pp. 138306-138322, 2026.
- Yoonho Lee, Roshen Sanjay Nair, Qizheng Zhang, Kangwook Lee, Omar Khattab, and Chelsea Finn. Meta-harness: End-to-end optimization of model harnesses. In Third Conference on Language Modeling , 2026. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=tmbOUyFx3R .
- Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2023.
- Haoran Ye, Xuning He, Vincent Arak, Haonan Dong, and Guojie Song. Meta context engineering via agentic skill evolution. In Forty-third International Conference on Machine Learning , 2026. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=P1jHroBS5E .
- Authors
- Shang, Z., Huo, Y., Gong, M., Yan, A., Qu, Z., Dong, J., Low, B. K. H., Wu, C., & Dai, Z.
- Affiliations
- Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen (CN)
- Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Nanyang Technological University (SG)
- Fudan University (CN)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2610.05300
- OpenAlex
- W7220698031
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Keywords
- agent harnesses, language model agents, compositional evolution, LinUCB, module reuse, code generation
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