Self-evolving agents write interaction experience into artifacts and reuse them in later tasks. Most work supports such methods with three proxy signals: artifacts accumulate, behavior changes once they are loaded, and metrics rise. We call this signal-based evaluation. What these signals are meant to indicate, however, has not been defined. To fill this gap, we define capability formation from artifacts as five sequentially dependent properties, two of which form a checkpoint for capability formation, and introduce three-scale diagnosis, which judges these properties at the state, game, and lineage levels. In freestyle Gomoku, Reflexion, Voyager, and DGM evolve with the same base model and all show the three signals, yet each exhibits a distinct capability-formation break. Reflexion shows a legalization gain: its pass rate rises only because more of its moves are legal. Voyager shows a compositional override: components that are sound on their own combine to miss all 20 available one-move wins. DGM shows loss-only drift: after passing the checkpoint, later versions only lose passing states. These counterexamples show that signal-based evaluation cannot determine whether a capability has formed.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Different reasoning requirements from the same board state.
Figure 2: The self-evolution loop: experience, evaluation, reflection, artifact updates, and feedback.
Figure 3: The three properties of the rule-based environment and the diagnostic scale each one supports: replayable states (state level), rule-judged task effects (state and game level), and fully recorded games and versions (game and lineage level).
Scale
Properties and criteria
Why this works
State-level
Compare moves with and without the tested artifact on the same states. Property 2: move changes exceed sampling noise. Property 3: the pass rate among legal moves increases.
The states are identical and the tested artifact is the only difference, so any change in moves can only come from it. A rule program independently specifies the acceptable moves, distinguishing “changed for the better” from “merely changed.”
Game-level
Play complete games between the frozen system and a programmatic opponent. Property 4: complete five at every immediate-win state.
At an immediate-win state, “win in one move” is already established and the rules specify the unique correct move. Failing to complete five shows that another part of the system overturned this effect, so no control condition is needed.
Lineage-level
Compare adjacent versions state by state on the same states, along with their wins. Property 5: later versions retain prior effects while adding new ones; losing without adding, or barely changing behavior, fails.
Paired state-level comparison shows exactly what each version adds or loses, and whether its modifications still reach behavior.
Table 1: Three-scale diagnosis and the properties it judges.
Signals
Three-scale diagnosis
Mechanism
Accumulation / behavior change / metric gain
State-level: Property 3
Game-level: Property 4
Lineage-level: Property 5
Break
Reflexion
Six cells, seven memories each; moves change on 59.8%–78.2% of B states (noise: 46.7%); overall pass rate rises from 8.0% to 9.2%–10.3% on B and from 21.7% to 22.5%–27.5% on A.
Legal pass rate improves in none of 12 combinations; fails .
Not judged.
Not judged.
Property 3
Voyager
Seven skills and a calling script; ablating components changes moves on 89–808 B states; open fours rise from 0/20 to 20/20.
round1 → full : 459 newly passing and 73 lost on B; holds.
Completes five at 0/20 immediate-win states; fails .
Not judged.
Property 4
DGM
Six accepted descendants; OB-3 changes moves on at least 661 B states relative to P0; B pass rate rises from 48.7% (P0) to 63.0% (OB-7); evolutionary score rises from 150.4 (OB-1) to 312.6 (OB-7).
OB-3 vs. P0: 522 newly passing and 139 lost; holds.
Completes five at 19/19; holds.
OB-5 and OB-6 only lose; OB-7 barely changes behavior; fails .
Property 5
Table 2: Signals and three-scale diagnosis results for the three mechanisms. Behavior change corresponds to Property 2; Property 1 is confirmed from call records for all three mechanisms (Section 5 ); Properties 3 and 4 must both hold.
Figure 4: Voyager against search_2 . Twenty independent games with different random seeds converge to four move sequences (G1–G4); numbers give move order. In every sequence, Voyager forms an open four whose two immediate winning points (blue stars) stay empty. At move 19, a conflict state, auto_player returns early on the defense branch and blocks one of search_2 ’s immediate winning points (orange ring); search_2 completes five at the other on move 20 (orange line). Immediate winning points are recomputed from the rules; Appendix E.1 lists them and the auto_player call order.
Figure 5: Reflexion on set B: change in each rate relative to empty memory, one dot per frozen memory (six in total; each memory keeps the same horizontal position in all three columns). All six raise the overall pass rate and the legality rate, yet all six lower the legal pass rate. The empty-memory rerun changes the three rates by +2.5% , +2.4% , and +0.6% . Full results for both sets are in Table C.1 .
Version
Wins
B pass rate
Newly passing / lost
P0
20/20
48.7%
—
OB-3
19/20
70.5%
+522 / −139 (vs. P0)
OB-5
9/20
64.6%
0 / −103
OB-6
0/20
63.0%
0 / −29
OB-7
0/20
63.0%
1 / 0
Table 3: Wins against search_2 , B pass rate, and paired changes relative to the preceding version along the main DGM lineage.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Condition
Set
Legality rate
# Pass
P(pass)
P(pass∣legal)
Empty memory
A
58.3%
26
21.7%
37.1%
Empty memory
B
49.8%
140
8.0%
16.0%
Empty memory (second run)
A
65.8%
26
21.7%
32.9%
Empty memory (second run)
B
51.0%
144
8.2%
16.1%
outcome ( threat-aware )
A
75.8%
33
27.5%
36.3%
outcome ( threat-aware )
B
67.3%
164
9.3%
13.9%
Appendix
Table C.1: Reflexion call outcomes on sets A and B. Each state is queried once under each condition. The opponent cell associated with each memory condition is shown in parentheses.
Condition
Move change
Net change
p
P(pass∣legal)
Empty memory (second run; noise baseline)
46.7%
+4
0.73
16.0% → 16.1%
threat-aware , outcome
61.3%
+24
0.0433
13.9%
threat-aware , trace
78.2%
+40
0.0037
12.3%
rule-based , outcome
62.9%
+35
0.0033
13.0%
rule-based , trace
72.8%
+26
0.0478
11.6%
search_2 , outcome
65.5%
+38
0.0031
13.8%
Appendix
Table C.2: Results for the six frozen memories on set B ( n=1,756 ). Net changes and p -values are based on state-level paired outcomes using the exact McNemar test.
Feedback
Set
Newly passing
Lost
p
Illegal → pass
Legal non-pass → pass
Net change among legal moves
outcome
A
8
1
0.039
6
2
+1
outcome
B
77
53
0.043
53
24
−12
trace
A
7
4
0.55
4
3
−1
trace
B
111
71
0.0037
72
39
−19
Appendix
Table C.3: State-level paired outcomes for the threat-aware memories and the sources of newly passing states. “Net change among legal moves” is computed only over states on which the model makes a legal move both with empty memory and with loaded memory; it equals the number of “legal non-pass → pass” transitions minus the number of “pass → legal non-pass” transitions.
Version
search_2 wins/undecided/losses
A
B
P0
20/0/0
66.7%
48.7%
OB-1
0/0/20
80.0%
78.6%
OB-2
15/0/5
74.2%
70.7%
OB-3
19/0/1
80.0%
70.5%
OB-5
9/11/0
66.7%
64.6%
OB-6
0/11/9
66.7%
63.0%
Appendix
Table D.1: Terminal outcomes against search_2 and pass rates on sets A and B for the main DGM lineage. The denominators for A and B are 120 and 1,756, respectively.
Configuration
Own open four formed
Wins
Mean length (moves)
full
20/20
0/20
20.0
-open3 (without create_open_three )
20/20
20/20
129.0
-minimax (without minimax_search )
0/20
0/20
20.0
round1 (first-round tactical skills only)
0/20
0/20
18.0
Appendix
Table E.1: Game outcomes against search_2 for the Voyager configurations (20 games per configuration).
Configuration
A (/120)
B (/1,756)
full
88
1,076
-open3 (without create_open_three )
96; 8/8/0
1,345; 330/274/5
-minimax (without minimax_search )
88; 0/0/0
1,084; 89/18/10
round1 (first-round tactical skills only)
80; 16/0/8
690; 808/73/459
Appendix
Table E.2: Pass counts for the Voyager configurations on sets A and B, with paired changes relative to the full system (moves changed / newly passing / lost).
Group
Records
Voyager’s immediate winning points
search_2 ’s immediate winning points
Move played
G1
4
(4,10), (9,5)
(4,5), (9,10)
(4,5)
G2
5
(4,10), (9,5)
(5,4), (10,9)
(5,4)
G3
5
(6,4), (11,9)
(6,9), (11,4)
(6,9)
G4
6
(4,6), (9,11)
(4,11), (9,6)
(4,11)
Appendix
Table E.3: The conflict state at move 19 in each Voyager trajectory group against search_2 . Immediate winning points are recomputed from the rules.
Work
Artifact source
Pairing or intervention unit
Same-state action pairing
Primary readout
Cross-version
EvoPathBench ( Lin et al., 2026a )
Evolutionary artifacts
Artifact on/off on held-out episodes
No (episode-level; trajectories diverge)
Episode risk-adjusted score difference
Yes (successive checkpoints)
Agent Plasticity ( Singh et al., 2026 )
Evolutionary artifacts
Checkpoint-level games; LLM-observed annotations
Single case (appendix only)
Game score; usage annotations
Yes (successive checkpoints)
Lin et al. (2026b)
Evolutionary artifacts
Agent × evolver cross-product
No
Pass-rate gain; loading and following rates
No
Misevolution ( Shao et al., 2026 )
Hand-constructed (memory experiment)
Same query with and without memory
Yes
Safety label
Yes (before and after evolution)
SkillApt ( Guo et al., 2026 )
Externally provided
Same task state with and without a skill
Yes (single answer)
Answer correctness; token cost
No
CMA ( Zhang et al., 2026c )
Policy-internal history
Two histories crossed on a verified-identical input
Yes
Task branch selected by the action; pairwise reliability
No
Appendix
Table G.1: Design elements compared with the closest related work.
Self-evolving agents convert interaction feedback into persistent artifacts, such as memories or skills, which in turn guide subsequent decisions. As these artifacts are iteratively updated throughout an experience stream, the capabilities they support may evolve. Consequently, endpoint performance alone offers an incomplete view of self-evolution. Process-level evaluation is therefore essential to identify when a target capability emerges and whether later updates strengthen, preserve, or weaken it. Motivated by this, we propose EvoPathBench, a benchmark that tracks individual capabilities during artifact-level self-evolution. EvoPathBench fixes the base model, tools, freezes evolving artifacts at successive checkpoints, and evaluates the target capability on held-out episodes. This benchmark evaluates agent self-evolution using public trading data and calibrated trajectories. It tests three capabilities: generalization to unseen tasks, retention after unrelated learning, and rule adaptation to new evidence. Experimental results show that gains on similar unseen tasks often weaken under distribution shift, retention losses are concentrated in a minority of evolution paths, and no method achieves reliable rule adaptation. Moreover, while self-evolution enables agents to generate candidate artifacts with substantial held-out gains, the selected updates consistently fall short of realizing this potential. Together, these findings establish capability-level process evaluation as a foundation for analyzing self-evolution, identifying candidate evaluation and selection as key targets for improvement.
An agent can complete a task without improving how it works. Turning task experience into reusable capability requires connecting the changed component to its evaluation and subsequent use. We present AgentEvolver, a system for developing capabilities during task execution while keeping the foundation model fixed. Eight entity families expose reusable operations, methods, agents, control flow, interfaces, and supporting state to revision through a common versioned lifecycle. A shared Runtime coordinates ongoing work, while persistent planning and recoverable context preserve task direction and supporting evidence. We evaluate task outcomes on SWE-bench Pro Public and examine capability changes in six application cases. The team reports an 82.08% resolution rate with evolution, exceeding its reported baseline without evolution. The cases show retained capabilities entering later website, game, and research work, while also documenting incomplete objectives and an unsuccessful strategy. These findings distinguish improvement in a reusable component from success on the final task. AgentEvolver provides a concrete basis for studying capability accumulation through execution; independent-task transfer and total development cost remain open questions.
Agent harness evolution enables recursive self-improvement (RSI) without updating model weights. We examine whether higher benchmark scores yield reliable, efficient, and transferable improvement. We evaluate four methods across harnesses, general and coding tasks. Repeated evaluations, controlled agent expansion, component interventions, and admission replays reveal recurring patterns. All sixteen evolved agents gain previously uncovered tasks while losing previously covered ones. In one general-task case, reliability rises by 5.2 points despite losing ten previously covered tasks. Most reliability gains also increase deployment cost. Specific changes usually outperform generic reminders, but their benefits can change when combined. The highest-scoring agent does not yield the largest mean improvement in any of our four pools, and stricter admission can discard useful alternatives. Transfer selectively preserves gains: coverage usually falls on the general-task target across both harness types and paradigms, but rises on the coding target with the outer-layer-only harness. These findings motivate preservation-aware evaluation, tested decision rules, and explicit applicability conditions. As a constructive follow-up, EvoAudit turns these diagnostics into revisions of select, analyze, mutate, and gate, achieving the best performance.
Xiaobo Wang, Zimu Wang, Siyu Ye +13
University of Science and Technology of China · Beijing Institute for General Artificial Intelligence · University of California, Berkeley +2