Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.29005

VeriEvolve: Evaluator-First Evolution for Tool-Using Agents

Abstract

A central obstacle to self-improving agents is the absence of a reliable fitness signal for realistic stateful tasks. We introduce \textsc{VeriEvolve}, an evaluator-first evolution framework that constructs this missing evaluation layer before optimizing the agent. From task instruction, VeriEvolve synthesizes instruction-grounded challenge states and an executable evaluator that checks them. During each round of workflow evolution, the evaluator is frozen and serves as the fitness signal. Between rounds, VeriEvolve revises the evaluator by converting the end states of strong and weak runs into a pair of counterfactual test cases. Across all 30 MCPMark Filesystem tasks, VeriEvolve constructs 30 evaluators with 141 challenge states, achieving 141/141 agreement on the generated suites and 113/122 agreement on held-out states produced by executor agents. Evaluator-guided evolution increases externally verified success from 6/30 to 18/30 for GLM-5.2 and from 27/30 to 30/30 for Claude; refinement removes all three false positives that the weak executor exposes. Cross-environment studies on PostgreSQL, Playwright, Notion, and GitHub further expose complementary limits from observability, state representation, and search/execution capacity. These results show that executable evaluators can be synthesized and used to guide search when task success is observable and an external verifier is available for calibration.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yueshen Li, Kamer Ali Yuksel, Gokhan Tur, Dilek Hakkani-Tür, João Pedro Maia. 2026-10-21. VeriEvolve: Evaluator-First Evolution for Tool-Using Agents. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.29005

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

When Agent Evaluation Becomes Unreliable: An Empirical Study of Oracle Failures and Configuration-Dependent Measurement in an LLM Agent Benchmark

Agent evaluation harnesses are software: they run a test suite, drive a test input generator, and decide outcomes with a test oracle. We audit them for defects a score table cannot show. First, a systematic oracle-integrity auditing approach - five state-integrity invariants and three known-answer controls - is measured by injecting seven oracle defect classes across two task domains and a synthetic domain. Every class is detected, and on the 57 separable variant-target combinations it detects 54; the repaired oracle yields no false positive. On a widely used agent benchmark, it exposes a reward function that resets the database to build a ground-truth hash and never restores it, so a harness scoring afterwards reads the reference solution's state: recorded labels report 4,194 database passes over 4,320 episodes, replay gives 2,883, and success falls from 94.3% to 65.5%. The correction is not a uniform offset; it removes 24 to 34 points from each agent and changes which agent this matrix measures as strongest. Second, more weakly, localising the apparatus is a property of the measurement: a 3,240-episode ablation associates the three documents with lower collapse in the tested configuration, without ordering them, and a second task domain reverses the language effect. Third, the method did not transfer to a second, independently implemented benchmark; we name the contract required. A replication package recomputes every analysis offline with no model calls.

cs.SE↗

Symmetry-Oriented Testing Framework for Variational Quantum Algorithms

Testing quantum software is challenging because quantum states cannot be directly inspected. Variational quantum algorithms (VQAs) are a particularly important target as they are among the most promising approaches for near-term noisy quantum hardware. Many testing methods rely on classically computed results, which conflicts with the regime where quantum advantage is expected. Although prior studies mitigate this oracle problem, the core difficulty remains that existing approaches do not verify whether the execution deviates from the intended problem or whether the obtained solution is physically plausible. We propose a symmetry-oriented testing framework for VQAs that addresses this gap by using operators commuting with the target Hamiltonian as test specifications. The framework provides two complementary diagnostics: a commutator-based health check that monitors whether each execution step during optimization remains consistent with the symmetry of the target Hamiltonian, and a variance-based acceptance check that assesses the converged solution by examining whether the state is an eigenstate of the symmetry operators. Both diagnostics derive from the problem structure and do not require the exact solution. We evaluate the framework on representative user- and system-side faults, across multiple target systems, and under injected noise. Results show that the two diagnostics detect faulty behavior, provide informative signals of solution quality, and remain useful under noisy execution.

cs.SE↗

VeeReview: Measuring Build-Verify Pairs in Agent-Authored Pull Requests from a V-Model Perspective

Context: Reviewing a pull request requires verification evidence that addresses the proposed change. Coding agent benchmarks and studies of pull request outcomes do not directly assess this relationship. Objective: We test whether the V-Model's build and verify pairs can measure verification evidence in pull requests and support comparisons between agent-authored and human-authored changes. Method: VeeReview classifies four build and verify pairs using repository signals and a language-model judge. Three pairs use model judgements constrained by deterministic signals, and a rule over the diff and repository tree decides Module Design-Unit Test. We evaluated VeeReview against a 25-pull request reference set labelled by two raters and applied it to 1,454 matched pairs of agent and human pull requests from 741 repositories. Results: VeeReview assigned lower build-only rates to agent-authored pull requests on all four pairs, contrary to the preregistered hypothesis (mixed-effects odds ratios 0.52 to 0.86). Architecture-Integration was not significant. Standardization for linked issues, shipped tests and size reduced matched-rate differences by 34% to 60%, and the rule-decided pair's standardized interval included zero. The instrument did not meet its preregistered calibration criterion: agreement with adjudicated labels was 4% to 60% against a required 80%, and inter-rater agreement was weak (kappa = 0.154). Conclusions: The rule-decided pair shows that a process measure judged by a language model partly reflects how a pull request is presented rather than the verification work behind it. We report the cohort differences as observations made with this instrument, and we argue that such measures need a mechanically decided component and a validated human reference before they can support comparisons of verification practice.

cs.SE↗