Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the reliability of self-authored verification in self-improving agents, revealing that agents often misjudge their performance due to the verifier-deployment gap, where self-assigned scores remain high despite poor real-world outcomes. The authors introduce the Sealed Exogenous Acceptance Loop (SEAL), which retains self-authored tests while integrating an external audit mechanism to prevent regressions. Experiments demonstrate that SEAL significantly enhances performance stability across various models, highlighting the importance of external validation in maintaining agent reliability during iterative policy updates.
Self-authored verification can lead to catastrophic performance regressions in self-improving agents, but integrating an external audit mechanism can stabilize outcomes.
Self-improving agents accumulate capability by repeatedly rewriting procedural policies, controllers, or heuristic rules. They typically rely on self-authored tests or metrics to decide whether to accept subsequent edits. The agent controls both the optimized object and its verifier. As a result, self-assigned scores can remain near perfect while real deployment performance degrades or stays low. We study this problem through the verifier--deployment gap. This gap refers to the discrepancy between an agent's self-authored verification signal and a sealed deployment evaluation that the agent cannot observe or access. We ask how self-authored verification fails under iterative policy-and-test rewriting, how the failure changes with capability, and how little exogenous trust is sufficient to prevent real regressions from being deployed. To address this problem, we introduce a Sealed Exogenous Acceptance Loop (SEAL). SEAL retains self-authored tests but compares each candidate with the incumbent through a fixed harness-side audit. The agent cannot author or inspect the audit, receives only accept/reject, and the whole incumbent state is retained after a clear regression. Our experiments show that this problem often appears in heuristic learning settings. These settings require trial-and-error discovery of the target objective. We further find that failures of self-written verification are stratified by capability. Weaker agents tend to damage previously acquired strategies behind easy self-tests. Stronger agents are more stable, but they still mismeasure the deployment distribution. Standard self-written constraints do not reliably close this gap. In contrast, SEAL outperforms unprotected baselines across six models and three random seeds. Reliable self-improvement need not abandon self-verification, but it requires at least one deployment-acceptance signal outside the agent's control.