跳到正文
arXiv cs.AI· Chien-Ping Lu·· 9 天前AI 评分22

Agentic AI 的验证与自我改进:基础与边界

Verification and Self-Improvement in Agentic AI: Foundations and Limits

AI 导读

研究提出用有界验证框架区分 Agentic AI 系统性能提升的不同机制,将阶段定义为可接受转录、多项式界、交替验证协议与终端检查器的组合。在均匀逐点概率间隔与任务相对可靠性下,独立多数放大可保持原生可达与闭包前沿两类语言,而随机磁带上的存在性接受可能引入错误输出。递归自我改进中,在共同可靠解释器与固定验证协议下的一致有界自我修改仍处于同一验证类,另设条件误差预算控制自适应候选选择中的误选。

正文 · 原文

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Agentic AI systems can improve by searching longer, receiving additional support, or modifying how they propose and verify outputs. A performance score does not distinguish these mechanisms. We compare these changes through bounded verification with hidden terminal randomness. A stage specifies admissible transcripts, polynomial bounds, an alternating verification protocol, and a terminal checker. Its native reach uses default support; its closure frontier permits all support already admitted by the interface. Under a uniform pointwise probability gap and task-relative soundness, these are well-defined languages. We prove that independent majority amplification preserves both languages, whereas existential acceptance over random tapes can admit incorrect outputs. Exact verification is the zero-randomness case, with placement and completeness results. The randomized-verifier classes satisfy $\Sigma_k^{\mathrm{P}}\subseteq\Sigma_k^{\mathrm{RV}}\subseteq\Sigma_{k+1}^{\mathrm{P}}$; strict enlargement and depth separation require explicit complexity assumptions, while $\mathrm{BPP}=\mathrm{P}$ yields exact companions with the same frontiers. Representation analysis separates invariant acceptance from core-versus-support labels that can change under refactoring. For recursive self-improvement, uniformly bounded self-modification under a common sound interpreter and fixed verification protocol remains within the same verification class. A separate conditional-error budget controls false selection across adaptively chosen candidates. A quota-enforced XOR-synthesis family separates unbounded ratios of search success from changes in the accepted languages; exact and probabilistic audits check the resulting evidence requirements. The framework ties self-improvement claims to obligations on correctness, admissible evidence, verification resources, and selection error.
Comments: 26 pages, 5 figures. Includes proofs and reproducibility artifacts
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computational Complexity (cs.CC)
Cite as: arXiv:2610.10611 [cs.AI]
  (or arXiv:2610.10611v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.10611

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Chien-Ping Lu [view email]
[v1] Wed, 7 Oct 2026 06:47:49 UTC (90 KB)

来源:arXiv cs.AI · arxiv.org