mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Falsifiable Release Gates for Self-Improving Systems: Standing Invariants at Scale

arXiv 2607.13070 ↗First posted 11 Jul 2026cs.SE cs.AIcited by 1

On the map: Synthetic data and self-improvement for LLMs → Self-evolving LLM agents

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Safety claims for self-improving agent runtimes are almost always self-graded: a policy file, a guardrail, a promise in a README. We describe falsifiable release gates, a methodology in which every new capability must pass a pre-declared, machine-checkable acceptance suite before it ships, while a fixed set of standing invariants is preserved across every gate. We instantiate it in Antahkarana, an open runtime, then do what a method paper is only vindicated by: we follow the same runtime as it grows and ask whether the guarantees survive. The safety-critical property, that no action reaches an effector without a capability token minted by a control ring, is machine-checked exhaustively over the reachable states of a bounded model; a deliberately broken model yields the shortest counterexample, so the checker demonstrably has teeth. We then carry the runtime through six further releases. Across every one, the action-safety invariants INV-1 through INV-6 held without a single change, and one release added three capabilities while introducing no new invariant. Under the same teeth discipline, six more machine-checked families were added: memory with provable unlearning, a governed agent, calibrated abstention over a post-quantum record, a harness of many sub-agents, the self-improvement loop itself, and the residency of what it produces. The acceptance suite grew from 122 tests to 563. The load-bearing result sits in the negative space: across more than a doubling of capability, the safety core was neither weakened nor redesigned. The last families are the first on real hardware: gated self-improvement compounds a small model from 20% to 70% accuracy while auto-rejecting a candidate that only inflates confidence, and the whole governed path costs 0.021 ms per request, 0.008% of model inference. We release the runtime, tools, and gate suite; every number reproduces with a single command.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Self-evolving LLM agents, one of 13 directions in Synthetic data and self-improvement for LLMs. Builds on 16 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Jul 2026.

Builds on

16 of 31 references.

References · 16

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  2. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  3. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
  4. 2016Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networkscited by 4,718
  5. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,072
  6. 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,846
  7. 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 2,950
  8. 2023A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agentscited by 2,203
  9. 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,582
  10. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
  11. 2023Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversationscited by 1,124
  12. 2019Machine Unlearningcited by 1,020
4 more
  1. 2020Dark Experience for General Continual Learning: a Strong, Simple Baselinecited by 895
  2. 2021A Gentle Introduction to Conformal Prediction and Distribution-Free Uncertainty Quantificationcited by 777
  3. 2022Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Modelscited by 760
  4. 2023NeMo Guardrails: A Toolkit for Controllable and Safe LLM Applications with Programmable Railscited by 347

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Position: A Three-Layer Probabilistic Assume-Guarantee Architecture Is Structurally Required for Safe LLM Agent Deployment
  2. 2026Safety Does Not Compose: Non-Decaying Loop State for Autonomous LLM Agents
  3. 2026Harness as an Asset: Enforcing Determinism via the Convergent AI Agent Framework (CAAF)
  4. 2026Containment Verification: AI Safety Guarantees Independent of Alignment
  5. 2026CausalNav: Reliability-Certified Causal World Models for Control under Physical-Parameter Shift
  6. 2024Quantifying stability of non-power-seeking in artificial agents
  7. 2026ClayBuddy: A Framework, Evaluation, & Mitigation of Coding Agent Failures
  8. 2026Trust Is Not a Score: Runtime Assurance Contracts for High-Risk AI Agents