In plain words: A coding agent that rewrites its own code chooses which changes to keep by estimating how well each version's future descendants will score, not by today's score. This beat earlier self-improving agents on two coding benchmarks with less computing time, matching the best human-built agents.
Abstract · Huxley-Gödel Machine: Human-Level Coding Agent Development by an Approximation of the Optimal Self-Improving Machine
Recent studies operationalize self-improvement through coding agents that edit their own codebases. They grow a tree of self-modifications through expansion strategies that favor higher software engineering benchmark performance, assuming that this implies more promising subsequent self-modifications. However, we identify a mismatch between the agent's self-improvement potential (metaproductivity) and its coding benchmark performance, namely the Metaproductivity-Performance Mismatch. Inspired by Huxley's concept of clade, we propose a metric ($\mathrm{CMP}$) that aggregates the benchmark performances of the descendants of an agent as an indicator of its potential for self-improvement. We show that, in our self-improving coding agent development setting, access to the true $\mathrm{CMP}$ is sufficient to simulate how the Gödel Machine would behave under certain assumptions. We introduce the Huxley-Gödel Machine (HGM), which, by estimating $\mathrm{CMP}$ and using it as guidance, searches the tree of self-modifications. On SWE-bench Verified and Polyglot, HGM outperforms prior self-improving coding agent development methods while using fewer allocated CPU hours. Last but not least, HGM demonstrates strong transfer to other coding datasets and large language models. The agent optimized by HGM on SWE-bench Verified with GPT-5-mini and evaluated on SWE-bench Lite with GPT-5 achieves human-level performance, matching the best officially checked results of human-engineered coding agents. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/metauto-ai/HGM.
Wenyi Wang, Piotr Piękos, Li Nanbo, Firas Laakom, Yimeng Chen, Mateusz Ostaszewski, Mingchen Zhuge, Jürgen Schmidhuber
arXiv:2510.21614 · cs.AI · submitted Oct 24, 2025 · updated Oct 29, 2025
abstract · pdf · html
my questions: - in the paper, it is applied only to SWE-bench, while it is said that it is extensible to other domains. what if the "domain" in question is arbitrary? do we construct our own benchmark manually?
- how does it hold up against OpenEvolve and Backpropamine? (it is my believe that Backpropamine shows actual plasticity, and not just in code; i.e. it is fundamentally different from HGM and DGM)?
- which one of these paradigms are more promising?