SoL-Pi: Recursively Scaling Auto-Research Loops for Efficient Agent Harness
As coding agents move from supervised code completion to unattended, around-the-clock exploration, their work expands from isolated predictions into long trajectories of reasoning, tool use, and feedback. Token efficiency therefore becomes important for scaling recursive self-improvement. We take an RSI-inspired approach at the harness layer, scaling auto-research loops across increasingly numerous and diverse environments for harness rollouts. At this scale, the process yields reusable improvements that transfer beyond their development setting, moving automated harness discovery toward production-level outcomes. Four mechanisms survive selection and form SoL-Pi, spanning action execution, context compaction, observation handling, and delegated reading. On the 51-task EdgeBench evaluation, SoL-Pi achieves performance comparable to Pi across GPT-5.6 Sol and Opus 5 while reducing recorded token traffic by 44.7–49.0% and API cost by about one third. In other words, estimated hourly savings are $8.75–$13.50 relative to native Codex and Claude Code harnesses, and $4.36–$5.71 relative to Pi.
Introduction. Advances in foundation models enable agents to tackle increasingly open-ended tasks over longer horizons with less supervision [1, 2, 3, 4]. This shift supports applications such as autonomous research, software engineering agents, self-evolving personal assistants, and early forms of recursive self-improvement (RSI) [5, 6, 7, 8]. As agents operate over longer horizons, task-level token efficiency becomes a first-order systems concern [9, 10]. Existing efficiency work has primarily focused on lowering the cost per token through faster attention kernels and serving infrastructure [11, 12], model compression techniques such as quantization [13, 14], or the use of cheaper models [15, 16]. In this paper, we explore an orthogonal direction: improving token use through the agent harness that mediates interactions between the model and its environment. Harness-level optimization can improve efficiency without additional model training, complementing infrastructureand model-level approaches [17, 18]. However, optimizing a harness is difficult in practice.
Discussion / Conclusion. We introduce SoL-Pi, an RSI-inspired auto-research system for discovering and combining efficient agent-harness mechanisms. On EdgeBench, the best-performing candidates improve model performance by 5.3–12.8% and token efficiency by 9.8–18.2%, while the complete stack reduces token traffic by 44.7–49.0% and token cost by about one third at comparable performance. The complete stack’s consistent results across GPT-5.6 Sol and Opus 5 demonstrate strong cross-model generalization within the evaluated setting, positioning SoL-Pi as a preliminary step toward scalable RSI systems. Pre-Training the Harness. Generalizing harness artifacts discovered through RSI remains a persistent challenge. Our results provide preliminary evidence that scaling auto-research loops can mitigate this challenge. Analogous to pretraining, the harness is exposed to many tasks and updated from the resulting trajectories. We hypothesize that scaling both executable environments and the diversity of research ideas can yield sustained gains; we call this long-term research direction pretraining the harness.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
What fundamental constraints limit how effectively agents can improve themselves?- Can autonomous research agents outperform hand-tuned hyperparameter search?
- Can agents learn to compress verified evidence and unresolved constraints into a compact improvement state?
- How can agent data flywheels improve task quality iteratively?
- Do task-level outcomes provide sufficient supervision for harness evolution?
- What makes an agent mechanism reusable versus benchmark-specific?
- Can context management be optimized for an agent without retraining or changing the model?
- Can runtime behavior mapping help localize harness deficiencies?
- How do evolved harness edits generalize across different benchmark domains?
- Can harness edits distill reusable strategies or mostly memorize task-specific fixes?
- How much realized agent capability comes from the harness versus the model?
- Can harness edits trained on one batch transfer to new tasks?
- How do prompt optimization and code harnesses compare for capability transfer?
- What safety relations does a domain supply that a harness must capture?
- How do agentic systems hide harness failures from benchmarks?
- What makes a harness low-friction for model strategy?
- Which domains see models exceed human harness design quality?
- Why do useful harness updates often disappear during model evolution?
- How much does executor choice change a harness's actual performance?
- Do models co-adapt their harnesses to specific executor strengths?
- Can mid-tier models benefit more from harness improvements than frontier models?
- Does harness scaling represent a fundamentally different path than model scaling?