Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

Where Does Harness-Optimization Value Live? Localized Gains and the Budget-Splitting Trap in Self-Evolving LLM Agents

Summary

A growing line of work treats the prompts wrapped around a frozen LLM as a flat string to evolve. This arXiv preprint argues that such flat-string evolution hides where gains come from. The authors' HARNESSEVO splits the harness into four slots—role, task-strategy, tool/format rules, reflection/control—and attributes each slot’s contribution. On ALFWorld, whole-pipeline success was not significantly better than baselines, but almost all value sat in the reflection/control slot (+0.119). Equal budget splitting starved each slot and froze progress; concentrating budget recovered the gain and reached 0.761 with half the compute. WebShop results show the effect is task-contingent.

SourcearXiv Computational LinguisticsAuthor: Michael Nguyen, Wei Chen Tan, Nurul Aisyah Hassan, Arvind Raman, Li Hua Lim, Ahmad Faiz Razak
Where Does Harness-Optimization Value Live? Localized Gains and the Budget-Splitting Trap in Self-Evolving LLM Agents
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 25 Jun 2026]

Title:Where Does Harness-Optimization Value Live? Localized Gains and the Budget-Splitting Trap in Self-Evolving LLM Agents

View a PDF of the paper titled Where Does Harness-Optimization Value Live? Localized Gains and the Budget-Splitting Trap in Self-Evolving LLM Agents, by Michael Nguyen and 5 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:A growing body of work improves frozen large language models (LLMs) as agents by evolving their harness: the textual scaffolding around the model, including persona, strategy, format rules, and control heuristics. Existing reflective prompt-evolution methods usually optimize this harness as one flat string. We instead ask where the optimization value actually resides. We introduce HARNESSEVO, which decomposes the harness into four separately evolvable slots: role, task-strategy, tool/format-rules, and reflection/control. Using the same reflective optimizer under an iso-budget setting, we pair this decomposition with leave-one-in and leave-one-out attribution to measure the contribution of each slot.

On ALFWorld with a frozen 7B backbone, HARNESSEVO does not significantly improve the overall binary success rate over either the stock harness or flat-string evolution: 0.657 versus 0.642 and 0.642, respectively. However, the slot-level analysis reveals that nearly all useful optimization value is localized in the reflection/control slot, which achieves a leave-one-in gain of +0.119. The other slots are individually null. We further show that uniform budget splitting is harmful: allocating 64 rollouts across four slots leaves only 16 per slot, below the optimizer's effective search floor, causing every slot to freeze at its empty seed. Concentrating the budget on the high-credit control slot recovers the lost gain, reaching 0.761 with half the split budget.

The effect is task-contingent. On WebShop, all slots freeze empty and all methods tie, indicating a genuine absence of recurrent, verbalizable control failures rather than budget starvation. Overall, our results suggest that harness value is localized, uniform budget splitting can be actively harmful, and credit assignment should precede structured agent-evolution.

Comments: 17 pages

Subjects:

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

Cite as: arXiv:2609.02889 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.02889v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.02889

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Michael Nguyen [view email] [v1] Thu, 25 Jun 2026 00:45:13 UTC (688 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Where Does Harness-Optimization Value Live? Localized Gains and the Budget-Splitting Trap in Self-Evolving LLM Agents, by Michael Nguyen and 5 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.CL

new | recent | 2026-09

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • HARNESSEVO identifies where prompt-evolution value lives by evolving role, task-strategy, tool/format, and reflection/control slots separately, using leave-one-in/out attribution.
  • On ALFWorld, overall success did not beat flat-string evolution (0.657 vs 0.642), yet nearly all measured gain was in the reflection/control slot (+0.119).
  • Spreading 64 rollouts uniformly across four slots gives 16 per slot, below the optimizer’s effective search floor, so every slot freezes at its seed; concentrating budget on reflection/control reaches 0.761 with fewer rollouts.
  • On WebShop no method improved and all slots stayed frozen, suggesting tasks without recurrent, verbalizable control failures offer no such optimization value.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.