Recursive Self-Improvement on a Budget: Scoring Code Edits Before They Run

Abstract

A coding agent that rewrites its own scaffold has to choose which proposed edit to expand before that edit has been evaluated, and the search then has to return one agent. Each run fits one linear readout on the parent's steering-split solve rate and eight coordinates of the proposed diff, from 96 scaffold edits labeled by four evaluations of a 16-instance fit split, and then freezes the coefficients. HumanEval+ reserves 48 instances as the steering split and Polyglot reserves 64. That split scores parents and keeps an archive of four nodes. Huxley-Gödel Machine selection draws a parent by Thompson sampling on the steering counts of nodes that have already been evaluated, and it expands the child that parent proposes. Every method then returns the earliest evaluated node whose steering-split solve count is maximal. The tables report the held-out score of that node on the other 100 HumanEval+ instances and the other 145 Polyglot instances, next to the root scaffold and the calibration edit with the highest fit-split label. Twelve runs of GPT-4o return a node at 87.0% on held-out HumanEval+, against 84.2% for the parent-rate ablation. On that split Huxley-Gödel Machine selection returns 85.1%, the root is at 81.2%, and the calibration-best edit is at 82.8%. On the same split Claude Sonnet 4.5 returns 86.6%, beside 86.5% for Huxley-Gödel Machine selection, 85.3% for the parent-rate ablation, and 85.1% for the calibration-best edit.