跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.04952 · v1

Artifact-to-Capability: Diagnosing Breaks in Capability Formation of Self-Evolving Agents in a Controlled Environment

首次提交 2026-11-03 22:12
版本更新 2026-11-03 22:12
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:39
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

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.

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-03 22:12 · 最新观测版本

Artifact-to-Capability: Diagnosing Breaks in Capability Formation of Self-Evolving Agents in a Controlled Environment

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.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗