Verify Less, Evolve More: Training Idea-Level Critics for Verification-Efficient ML Evolving Agents
cs.AI
Submitted: 2026-10-06
Updated: 2026-10-06
Code: https://github.com/algorithmicsuperintelligence/openevolve
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: As large language models become more powerful, self-evolving agents are able to tackle challenging tasks including AI for machine learning (AI4ML).
Terminology
Abstract
As large language models become more powerful, self-evolving agents are able to tackle challenging tasks including AI for machine learning (AI4ML). In AI4ML, while empirical verification is available, it often requires computationally costly model training and evaluation, limiting the speed and scale of agent evolution. Yet verification efficiency remains under-explored, and frontier models provide only limited gains when used directly as idea selectors. We address this gap with specialized idea-level critic models that predict whether a proposed ML modification will improve upon the current solution, allowing agents to screen ideas and concentrate verification resources on the most promising candidates. We train the critic models through supervised fine-tuning on high-quality critiques synthesized by Gemini-3.1-Pro, followed by GRPO to further improve their predictive accuracy. Empirically, our critic models outperform Gemini-3.1-Pro in static idea evaluation, and these gains extend to agent inference, continual learning, and policy training. During inference-time evolution, they improve final solution quality under the same verification budget by selecting more promising ideas, with further gains from continual learning. During policy training, they serve as learned reward models, reserving empirical verification for uncertain cases and enabling substantially more policy updates with the same verification resources. Together, these results show that idea-level critic models help ML agents discover better solutions and learn stronger proposal policies under limited verification budgets.
Sources
- Graph-Structured Rubrics: Compiling Rubrics into Typed Evaluation Graphs for LLM Judges
- MARG: Multi-Agent Review Generation for Scientific Papers
- Training AI Scientists to Replicate Research
- AI Research Preference Models
- ReviewAgents: Bridging the Gap Between Human and AI-Generated Paper Reviews
- Reviewer2: Optimizing Review Generation Through Prompt Generation
- EvoRubric: Self-Evolving Rubric-Driven RL for Open-Ended Generation
- MLAgentBench: Evaluating Language Agents on Machine Learning Experimentation
- AIDE: AI-Driven Exploration in the Space of Code
- Weak Critics Make Strong Learners: On-Policy Critique Distillation for Scalable Oversight
- MLR-Copilot: Autonomous Machine Learning Research based on Large Language Models Agents
- AutoResearchClaw: Self-Reinforcing Autonomous Research with Human-AI Collaboration
- AIGS: Generating Science from AI-Powered Automated Falsification
- Inference-Time Scaling for Generalist Reward Modeling
- The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery
- MLS-Bench: A Holistic and Rigorous Assessment of AI Systems on Building Better AI
- LLM Critics Help Catch LLM Bugs
- ScholarEval: Research Idea Evaluation Grounded in Literature
- AlphaEvolve: A coding agent for scientific and algorithmic discovery
Related papers
- MAVEN-T: Reinforced Heterogeneous Distillation for Real-Time Multi-Agent Trajectory Prediction
- Model Discovery Agent: LLM-assisted Bayesian experiment design for data-efficient discovery of mechanistic world models
- Agents' Last Exam
- The Clinician's Veto: Navigating Trust, Liability, and Uncertainty in Autonomous AI Prescribing
- MindHelper: Closed-Loop Embodied Mental-State Reasoning for Precision Intervention
- Incumbent Advantage: Brand Bias and Cognitive Manipulation Dynamics in LLM Recommendation Systems