The Ratchet Effect in Silico: How Interaction Drives Cumulative Intelligence in Large Language Models

Large language models provide a tractable system for asking how intelligence itself emerges, rather than only how LLMs can be engineered. Although progress is usually attributed to scale, data and architecture, we show that parameter initialization is a gene-like determinant of training and, in particular, of model capacity. Reducing the initialization scale consistently improves pretraining, with the largest gains on reasoning-demanding tasks. We identify two widely used empirical settings that restrain the advantage of small initialization, and show how relaxing them restores favorable scaling. We further uncover a critical initialization that balances the reasoning and training. Mechanistically, small initialization drives a distinct developmental trajectory: parameters first condense into low-complexity structures and later expand into richer representations, giving concrete form to the idea that compression is intelligence. Token-level analyses show that the gains concentrate on non-trivial, context-constrained predictions rather than all tokens uniformly. These results motivate a simple $γ$-initialization rule: expose initialization rage as an explicit knob and use small initialization by default, an almost cost-free intervention that improves pretraining and strengthens reasoning across model scales.

Inference-time multi-agent LLM scaling lacks a shared unit: counting nominal agents conflates cost with independent evidence. We derive a two-parameter scaling law $R(N) = N_\text{eff}/N = 1/(1+c(N-1)N^{-β})$ where the regime exponent $β$ classifies any configuration into one of three asymptotic regimes -- hard-ceiling at $1/c$ ($β= 0$), sublinear at $N^β/c$ ($0 < β< 1$), or linear ($β\ge 1$), and a mean-field theorem predicts that peer count $k$ and rounds $τ$ during agent debate enter the dynamics only through their product $kτ$. The law applies at two levels: answer diversity and correctness redundancy. Across 44 (model $\times$ task $\times$ condition) cells spanning peer debate, self-correction, random-noise placebo, self-consistency, three open-weight families (Qwen, Llama, Ministral) at scales from 7B to 32B with a frontier API check (Gemini), thinking models, heterogeneous teams, and sparse communication, the functional form fits every condition at $R^2 > 0.99$; only $(c, β)$ shifts. On free-form math, dense peer influence collapses the answer-level regime from sublinear into hard-ceiling; correctness-level fits remain hard-ceiling throughout. Three findings have practical implications. \emph{(i)}~Thirty dense debating agents produce no more answer diversity than one on MMLU-Hard. \emph{(ii)}~A noise placebo tracks self-correction on free-form math and at $4\times$ scale, so within homogeneous teams the gain commonly attributed to ``debate'' comes from re-evaluation, not peer content. \emph{(iii)}~A single $N \le 5$ pilot predicts the $N=30$ structural ceiling, and within the configurations tested only architectural diversity (heterogeneous teams) lowers $c$ and escapes the hard-ceiling regime, communication-mode interventions do not.

Self-evolving skill libraries, pioneered by Voyager, let frozen LLM agents accumulate reusable knowledge without weight updates, yet recent evaluation shows that LLM-authored skills deliver $+0.0$pp over no-skill baselines while human-curated ones deliver $+16.2$pp: the bottleneck is not skill authoring but lifecycle management. We introduce \textbf{Ratchet}, a single-agent loop in which a frozen LLM writes, retrieves, curates, and retires its own natural-language skills. Ratchet integrates four candidate hygiene mechanisms: outcome-driven retirement, a bounded active-cap, meta-skill authoring guidance, and pattern canonicalisation. On MBPP+ hard-100 with Claude Opus 4.7, Ratchet lifts held-out pass@1 from a $0.258 \pm 0.047$ baseline to a late-window rolling mean of $0.584$ (peak $0.658 \pm 0.042$) across 100 rounds and 3 seeds, a $+0.328 \pm 0.018$ rolling-mean gain where the no-skill control drifts at $+0.002 \pm 0.005$; the same recipe transfers to an agentic solver on SWE-bench Verified ($+0.22$ peak lift over 20 rounds). Eight ablations (A1--A8) reveal that the minimal working recipe is smaller than our design suggests: retirement and the meta-skill authoring prior are load-bearing, while explicit deduplication (canonicalisation, cover-guard) is subsumed by the meta-skill itself. A non-divergence proposition shows that bounded cap and retirement threshold together prevent expected performance from drifting below the no-skills floor.