arxiv-2505-22954 SRC-0079 · paper

Darwin Godel Machine: Open-Ended Evolution of Self-Improving Agents

Jenny Zhang, Shengran Hu, Cong Lu, Robert Lange, Jeff Clune

Created: 2025-05-29 · Ingested: 2026-09-14

Today's AI systems have human-designed, fixed architectures and cannot autonomously and continuously improve themselves. The advance of AI could itself be automated. If done safely, that would accelerate AI development and allow us to reap its benefits much sooner. Meta-learning can automate the discovery of novel algorithms, but is limited by first-order improvements and the human design of a suitable search space. The Gödel machine proposed a theoretical alternative: a self-improving AI that repeatedly modifies itself in a provably beneficial manner. Unfortunately, proving that most changes are net beneficial is impossible in practice. We introduce the Darwin Gödel Machine (DGM), a self-improving system that iteratively modifies its own code (thereby also improving its ability to modify its own codebase) and empirically validates each change using coding benchmarks. Inspired by Dar…

In brief

An agent that edits its own codebase, keeps every variant in an archive, and validates each change empirically can raise its own coding benchmark scores roughly 2x, without any formal proof that a modification helps.

The Darwin Godel Machine starts from 1 lightweight coding agent with a Bash tool and a whole-file edit tool, powered by frozen FMs (Claude 3.5 Sonnet (New) for self-modification; o3-mini for Polyglot evaluation). It ran 80 iterations, generating 1 agent per iteration, evaluated on SWE-bench Verified and Polyglot subsets with staged task counts of 10, 50, 60, and 200.

SWE-bench went from 20.0% to 50.0%; Polyglot from 14.0% to 38.0% on the 50-task subset and 14.2% to 30.7% on the full benchmark. Discovered changes were mundane engineering: line-granular viewing, string-replacement editing, multiple attempts with an FM judge.

Both mechanisms were ablated: removing self-improvement (equivalent to ADAS) plateaued early, and removing the archive left poor modifications hard to escape. Transfer was measured, not argued: the SWE-bench agent reached 28.9% on Polyglot, the Polyglot agent 24.5% on SWE-bench, and swapping in Claude 3.7 Sonnet gave 19.0% base versus 59.5% evolved, o3-mini 23.0% versus 33.0%.

Limits are real: 1 run per condition, noisy small subsets, no FM retraining, coding only, still short of closed-source SWE-bench SoTA, and about 2 weeks and large API cost per run.

If you assumed self-referential improvement needed provable steps, this suggests benchmark validation plus an archive suffices, at heavy compute cost.

Written from the abstract by claude-opus-5 on 2026-09-15, with every figure checked against it. Not a substitute for the paper.

Referenced by

Claims in this catalog that draw on this source, and whether as support or counterpoint.

No claims cite this yet.