# Self-Evolving Software Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.27264 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.27264/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 3 of its 30 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 29 Apr 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)
- Synthetic data and self-improvement for LLMs / [Self-evolving LLM agents](https://mlsanity.com/synth/self-evolving-llm-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07258/) (2021)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Autonomous agents can adapt their behaviour to changing environments, but remain bound to requirements, goals, and capabilities fixed at design time, preventing genuine software evolution. This paper introduces self-evolving software agents, combining BDI reasoning with LLMs to enable autonomous evolution of goals, reasoning, and executable code. We propose a BDI-LLM architecture in which an automated evolution module operates alongside the agent's reasoning loop, eliciting new requirements from experience and synthesizing corresponding design and code updates. A prototype evaluated in a dynamic multi-agent environment shows that agents can autonomously discover new goals and generate executable behaviours from minimal prior knowledge. The results indicate both the feasibility and current limits of LLM-driven evolution, particularly in terms of behavioural inheritance and stability.