Epi: Towards a Persistent, Self-Improving Agent for Autonomous Research
Authors: Yue Huang, Zhangchen Xu, Xiaonan Luo, Zheyuan Liu, Lichi Li, Yiping Wang, Peiyang Song, Eric Gabriel Ramos, Enze Xie, Olexandr Isayev, Paul Liang, Nouha Dziri, Huan Sun, Jianfeng Gao, Ying Liu, Misha Sra, Xiangliang Zhang, Alex Pentland, Zichen Chen
Organizations: Bake AI · University of Notre Dame · University of Washington · Carnegie Mellon University · Stevens Institute of Technology · NVIDIA · MIT · Cohere Labs · The Ohio State University · Microsoft · Scale AI · UC Santa Barbara · Stanford University
We present Épi, an autonomous research agent that sustains investigations across model sessions and evolves its methods through accumulated experience. Épi combines persistent research history, hierarchical memory, branching and independent review to maintain research continuity, learn from experiments, and explore and revisit alternative approaches. Its experiments run across session boundaries, and a fixed verifier evaluates their outputs. Épi produced 120 record-setting results, comprising 20 numerical bound records across 12 families and 100 construction records across eight families. These include an approximately 84-fold narrower interval for the n-queens constant and a more than 3.6-million-fold narrower rigorous interval for the quartic Feigenbaum attractor dimension. Exact dual certificates establish that the Cohn-Elkies linear-programming bound cannot be sharp in dimensions 10 and 11. Beyond numerical improvements, Épi gives a computer-assisted proof of Tuza's conjecture for split graphs with an eight-vertex clique part and at most three triangle-active neighborhood types, with arbitrary multiplicities. We extend this research process to algorithmic coding with Épi-turbo, a lightweight configuration that develops executable solvers for tasks including vehicle routing, scheduling and production planning. On 30 FrontierOR tasks, Épi-turbo achieves a 5.4% higher total benchmark score than Codex at 64% of its model cost, using the same underlying model and reasoning effort. Épi is designed to support human understanding by connecting computational results to explicit methods and mathematical arguments that researchers can examine and build upon.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Épi’s research architecture. The agent develops methods on versioned branches and retrieves saved history and cross-case lessons. An independent model reviews the evidence. The environment checks each candidate under a fixed ruler and gain floor. The execution infrastructure supports experiments, persistent storage and isolated verifier execution across sessions. Section 2 defines the acceptance rule.
Figure 2: The 120 records, grouped by collection and family. Each dot is one final record. Multiple parameter settings within a family count separately; repeated improvements to the same setting count once. The Tuza theorem extension is shown separately.
Quantity
Previous bound
Épi
Evidence
Wellens’ D∞↓
4.393500
4.365467
Rational witnesses
CE dual bounds ↑
1/20,1/24,1/24,1/28
Table 2 : d=9,10,11,13
Exact dual certificates
Spencer constant ↑
7/17
5/8
All 256 sign assignments
Dimer entropy ↓
0.452130
0.452010
Integer transfer inequalities
n -queens interval width
3.30×10−7
3.94×10−9
Rational and interval checks
Ramsey c4,5↓
0.007932
0.007865
A 1,024-vertex graph
Table 1: Twenty numerical records across 12 families. Arrows indicate the improving direction. Interval widths are reduced. This overview uses rounded decimals. Precise bounds appear in the appendix and Table 2 .
Figure 3: Nine final record constructions. The three pentagon arrangements use unit-side pentagons; circle packings use a unit-radius semicircle or quadrant, or a unit-circumradius octagon. Percentages compare the final artifact with its archived reference. Triangle side length decreases; circle radius increases.
Dimension
Earlier dual bound
Épi dual bound Ld
Packing upper bound Ud
9
1/20
0.058044329039
10
1/24
0.056433853144
0.05623600
11
1/24
0.057731808202
0.05664550
13
1/28
0.066440082613
Table 2: New lower bounds on the optimal Cohn–Elkies bound in dimensions 9, 10, 11, and 13, rounded downward. The packing upper bounds are converted from Table 1.1 of Cohn et al. (2022) to center density and rounded upward. All values use center-density normalization.
Figure 4: Left: paired markers compare the earlier and improved dual lower bounds on the Cohn–Elkies optimum in each dimension. Right: in dimensions 10 and 11, the new lower bounds exceed known upper bounds on actual packing density. The displayed values use center density, and the relative gaps are Ld/Ud−1 .
Figure 5: Two new mathematical records. Left: the interval for the n -queens constant is approximately 84 times narrower. Right: an explicit 8×8 matrix with discrepancy five gives the Spencer lower bound 5/8 . The matrix entries are −1 , 0 , and 1 .
Figure 6: Two improvements in certified uncertainty. The horizontal axes show interval or bound-gap width on logarithmic scales. Left: the rigorous enclosure for the quartic Feigenbaum attractor dimension becomes over 3.6 million times narrower. Right: the waterund36 gap to the same known feasible value decreases from about 7.263 to 1.001×10−5 .
Measure
Épi-turbo
Codex
Total benchmark score
53.96
51.21
Tasks with the higher score
18
12
Mean quality term
1.030
1.032
Mean speed term
0.784
0.675
Instances with the better solution (119 comparable, 40 ties)
18
61
Instances more than 1% worse than the other system
29
10
Table 3: Épi-turbo and Codex on 30 FrontierOR tasks that were new to both systems. Both systems use GPT-6-Astra and a model budget of $20 per task. All scores are for the held-out instances. The instance counts compare the objective values of the two programs directly.
Figure 7: Épi-turbo and Codex on 30 FrontierOR tasks. A: The score difference for each task, in order of size. Épi-turbo has the higher score on 18 tasks, and its gains are larger than its losses. B: The model cost for each task. Each point below the dashed line is a task where Épi-turbo costs less. C: The runtime of each held-out run on a logarithmic scale, with the medians as vertical bars.
Group
Tasks
Total score
Higher score
Model cost
Hard split
13
22.33 / 20.30
9 / 4
95/152
Ranks 51–70
17
31.64 / 30.91
9 / 8
124/188
All tasks
30
53.96 / 51.21
18 / 12
219/341
Table 4: Results by task group. The hard split is the official set of the 50 hardest FrontierOR tasks. Each pair of values gives Épi-turbo first and Codex second.
Task
Score
Quality term
Speed term
Model cost
Hyperplane clustering amaldi2013
2.162 / 1.283
1.163 / 1.282
0.999 / 0.001
2.59/4.86
Clique interdiction furini2021
2.090 / 1.256
1.091 / 0.841
0.999 / 0.415
3.82/6.47
Vehicle routing with node costs he2020
2.094 / 1.353
1.098 / 1.108
0.995 / 0.245
3.42/13.90
Maximum clique furini2019
1.987 / 1.487
1.000 / 0.988
0.987 / 0.500
5.78/11.58
Cooperative crane scheduling kress2019
1.853 / 1.572
1.103 / 1.074
0.750 / 0.498
4.78/3.90
Process configuration and production planning delage2022
2.023 / 1.759
1.024 / 1.012
0.999 / 0.747
7.32/13.04
Table 5: The ten FrontierOR coding tasks with the largest score difference in favor of Épi-turbo, sorted by the difference. Task names identify the optimization problem solved by each generated program; benchmark IDs appear below them. Scores, quality and speed are measured on held-out instances. Each pair gives Épi-turbo first and Codex second.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
h
Published coefficient
Épi coefficient
3
14.3
14.287390218082
4
71.49
70.289552594834
5
413.07
408.104453996958
6
2774.16
2749.492485514635
7
21294.74
21149.189776156220
Appendix
Table 6: Improved upper-bound coefficients for Bh[g] sets.
Problem
Archived reference
Épi
Vehicle routing, XL-n1048-k237
380107
380092
Autocorrelation (signed maximum)
1.4515718639
1.4508066395
Zhang–Zagier, c82
0.2536331090
0.2535744749
Appendix
Table 7: Non-packing construction results in the construction collection.
AI research agents are increasingly used to search over programs, mathematical constructions, and proofs. However, existing systems typically optimize evaluator feedback without adequately governing how that feedback is interpreted, challenged, and reused. As a result, promising but fragile candidates can be promoted as discoveries, while benchmark improvements, finite certificates, and theorem-level claims are too easily conflated. We introduce EPOCH, an evidence-governed architecture designed to close this gap. EPOCH implements an evidence-governed discovery loop by combining explicit task contracts, typed memory, active falsification, admission checks, and independent replay, so that each candidate is evaluated against the strength and scope of the claim it supports. EPOCH achieves state-of-the-art aggregate performance on AlgoTune, substantially exceeding the strongest baseline in mean normalized score (0.65 vs. 0.53), and attains the highest mean score on the internal Math14 suite (0.57). It further shows favorable held-out behavior under official-test replay and leads the descriptive aggregate on AgentHPO. Across ten discovery problems, EPOCH delivers substantial task-specific advances, including improved executable constructions, optimized algorithms, counterexamples, and proof-supported results. These advances demonstrate its ability to convert search into concrete progress across mathematical and computational domains. Together, the results suggest that evidence governance is a necessary step toward AI research agents that produce not only stronger solutions, but also more trustworthy scientific discoveries.
We present Eureka, a task-conditioned Meta-Agent architecture that compiles long-horizon tasks into dynamic obligation graphs with explicit acceptance semantics. During execution, Eureka forms Macro-Agents with specialized state, memory, operators, tools, verifiers, and local topology via receding-horizon planning, architecture promotion, and minimal-sufficient compilation. When bottlenecks recur, cost-benefit-gated evolution updates the local architecture under constraints. Theoretically, we establish results on regret, planning invalidation, amortization, subtree interfaces, serializability, and verification. Experimentally, Eureka completes 170/170 recursive tasks and generates 3,948 certificates with no false acceptances. Active context compresses median input from 9,490 to 4,005 tokens; incremental processing avoids 65.38% recomputation across 12,000 tasks; 16,000 concurrent executions serialize consistently. The same Meta-Agent instantiates a Theory-Discovery Agent and a Math/Conjecture Agent. The former yields structural results in quantum-process and spacetime theory. The latter identifies bottlenecks in Riemann Hypothesis research and advances a positivity certificate for Suzuki's localized Weil quadratic form to 0 < a <= 69/200 = 0.345, reaching ~99.55% of (log 2)/2. These results suggest that scientific-agent capability depends not only on the base model but on whether an architecture can be formed to match the task's cognitive structure.
Alizer Wong, Heng Cui, Yi Tan +6
ManXis · School of Information Engineering, Guangdong University of Technology · School of Automation, Guangdong University of Technology +5
AI agents are beginning to automate research and development across the AI stack, from improving training efficiency to optimizing inference. A natural next step is to improve the research efficiency of the agents themselves. When an AI research agent's own code is the object of optimization, each accepted rewrite becomes the agent that the next round edits. We refer to this loop as recursive self-improvement. Its significance lies in a long-standing trend, in which increased cumulative spending on R&D yields diminishing returns. Sustained self-improvement offers a way to counter this trend. We present AIDE^2, a system that implements this loop for a frontier AI research agent. It proposes changes to its own code, benchmarks modified versions of itself on a suite of AI R&D tasks, and keeps the changes that perform best on hidden evaluations. In an autonomous 8-day run, AIDE^2 discovered seven successive improvements, ranging from a new search policy to memory mechanisms that compress and manage the agent's growing context. These gains generalize to four held-out benchmarks spanning machine learning engineering, heuristic algorithm engineering, and physics-based weather forecasting, the last of which is out of distribution from the selection tasks. On all four, the strongest discovered agent matches or exceeds a human-engineered production research agent that ranks among the strongest on FML-Bench. On a separate held-out task family, the discovered agents also exhibit reduced reward hacking, a property the loop never explicitly optimized for: the rate falls from 55% to 32% during the run, 7 percentage points below the human-engineered agent. Together, these results show that an AI research agent can improve its own research efficiency through recursive self-improvement, and that these gains transfer to tasks and domains the loop never encountered.