Demonstrates the impact of evaluation methods on autonomous agent progress reporting, indicating structural requirements to prevent stagnation.
Long-running autonomous agents increasingly plan, act, and judge their own completion without continuous human intervention. When an agent grades its own work, however, self-evaluation bias takes hold: plausible changes are accepted as progress, and the loop reports advancement while real-world outcomes stagnate or regress. We name this failure mode the progress mirage and show, with controlled measurement, that it is a question of what the evaluator is grounded in. We built a testbed that holds the agent and its tool surface fixed across all conditions and manipulates only the information-channel type of the evaluator that gates the loop. A world-state oracle (a synthetic user simulator) that is unfakeable in principle is enforced by container and network isolation, and the agent's inability to reach that oracle is empirically verified by a boundary proof at every run and a canary scan at every cycle. The agent claimed its change was an improvement in all 54 cycles, yet 56 percent of those cycles had a measured delta of zero or below. Self-report was thus an uninformative signal, and the self-verdict gate that trusts it degenerated into accept-all, eroding the best deployed state it had reached by 19 percent. Even the strongest in-band judge accepted cycles of which 44 percent were real-world regressions and rejected 38 percent of real improvements, so the preregistered adversarial hypothesis that a strong judge closes the gap was rejected. In contrast, on a boundary task whose success specification is verifiable from the artifact itself, the same judge's mirage vanished to 0 (H2 accepted), showing that the gap depends on where the success signal resides. For open-ended real-world objectives whose success signal lives in the state of the world outside the transcript, scaling up the judge is not enough; out-of-band evaluation with access to the real world is a structural requirement for preventing the progress mirage. This record contains both the English manuscript (primary) and the Korean manuscript of the same study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: