CAPE: Capability Achievement via Policy Execution
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Modern AI systems lack a way to express and enforce requirements. Pre-training produces intelligence, and post-training optimizes preferences, but neither guarantees that models reliably satisfy explicit, context-dependent constraints. This missing abstraction explains why highly intelligent models routinely fail in deployment despite strong benchmark performance. We introduce Capability Engineering, the systematic practice of converting requirements into executable specifications and training models to satisfy them by default. We operationalize this practice through CAPE (Capability Achievement via Policy Execution), a protocol implementing a Specify -> Verify -> Correct -> Train loop. CAPE is grounded in two empirical findings: (1) contextual objectivity, where properties appearing subjective become objective once context is fixed (inter-annotator agreement rises from kappa = 0.42 to kappa = 0.98), and (2) verification-fidelity scaling, where verification accuracy improves with model scale (r = 0.94), unlike preference agreement which plateaus at 30 to 50 percent disagreement regardless of compute. Across 109,500 examples in six domains, CAPE reduces violation rates by 81 percent relative to DPO (standard deviation less than 0.3 percent). By replacing per-example annotation with reusable specifications, CAPE reduces costs by 5 to 20 times and shortens timelines from months to weeks. We release the CAPE protocol, PredicateGraph schema, CPL specification language, and policy packs under Apache 2.0. We also launch CapabilityBench, a public registry of model evaluations against community-contributed policies, shifting evaluation from intelligence benchmarks toward capability measurement.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Dec 2025.
Builds on
24 of 34 references.
References · 24
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 15,215
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
- 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,330
- 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,912
- 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,789
- 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,720
- 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,637
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
- 2025DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scalecited by 2,810
- 2019Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferencescited by 2,150
12 more
- 2025Understanding R1-Zero-Like Training: A Critical Perspectivecited by 1,345
- 2025Kimi k1.5: Scaling Reinforcement Learning with LLMscited by 1,210
- 2022Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimizationcited by 1,095
- 2023NeMo Guardrails: A Toolkit for Controllable and Safe LLM Applications with Programmable Railscited by 365
- 2025Crossing the Reward Bridge: Expanding RL with Verifiable Rewards Across Diverse Domainscited by 156
- 2025DeepSeekMath-V2: Towards Self-Verifiable Mathematical Reasoningcited by 94
- 2025A Sober Look at Progress in Language Model Reasoning: Pitfalls and Paths to Reproducibilitycited by 93
- 2025Concise Reasoning via Reinforcement Learningcited by 79
- 2024XGrammar: Flexible and Efficient Structured Generation Engine for Large Language Modelscited by 75
- 2025Reinforcement Learning for Reasoning in Small LLMs: What Works and What Doesn'tcited by 74
- 2025JSONSchemaBench: A Rigorous Benchmark of Structured Outputs for Language Modelscited by 71
- 2025Rethinking Reflection in Pre-Trainingcited by 43
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Position: Capability Control Should be a Separate Goal From Alignment
- 2026Beyond Training: A Feasibility Taxonomy for Inference-Time AI Governance
- 2025The Elicitation Game: Evaluating Capability Elicitation Techniques
- 2025Autonomous Assessment of Generalizability of AI Agent Capabilities
- 2026Contextual Multi-Objective Optimization: Rethinking Objectives in Frontier AI Systems
- 2026AI4AI at Test-Time: Strong-to-Weak Capability Transfer via Harnesses
- 2026Capek 0.5: An Execution-Centric Vision-Language Model for Embodied Intelligence
- 2025Safety by Measurement: A Systematic Literature Review of AI Safety Evaluation Methods