Beneath the Diff: Diagnosing and Mitigating Algorithmic Mode Collapse in Code-Level Autonomous Research Loops

We sketch a conceptual account that predicts when and why a code-level autonomous research loop should undergo algorithmic mode collapse, framing the four diagnostic axes (§3.2) and the DAPS components (§3.4) as instruments for testing its predictions.

Let $\pi_{\theta}(\rho,c\mid\mathcal{P},h)$ denote the proposer’s joint distribution over patches $\rho$ and their mechanism categories $c$, conditioned on the current pipeline $\mathcal{P}$ and history $h$. Three structural facts about this distribution drive the dynamics.

(F1) Non-uniform prior over mechanism categories. Pretraining and instruction data over-represent some ML edit types: learning-rate adjustment, optimizer hyperparameter changes, simple regularization tweaks. Meanwhile, they under-represent others, such as custom kernels, packed-sequence handling, or idiosyncratic loss formulations. Marginalizing $\pi_{\theta}$ over patches yields a heavily peaked categorical $\pi_{\theta}(c\mid\mathcal{P})$.

(F2) Category-dependent acceptance rate. The acceptance rule $R$ retains an edit only when its measured gain exceeds a noise floor $\epsilon$. Different categories have systematically different probabilities of producing edits with reliable signal above $\epsilon$: small-step micro-tunings (scheduling, regularization) move $m^{\text{opt}}$ by small but consistent amounts, while structural edits (architecture, loss reformulation) move it more in expectation but with high variance and frequent regressions. Writing $\alpha(c)$ for the per-category acceptance rate, the empirical distribution of accepted edits is proportional to $\pi_{\theta}(c)\cdot\alpha(c)$, already a sharpening of $\pi_{\theta}(c)$ toward low-variance categories.

(F3) Self-imitation through history conditioning. Code-level autonomous research loops typically include accepted edits in $h$. The conditional $\pi_{\theta}(c\mid\mathcal{P},h_{t})$ then drifts toward the empirical distribution of past acceptances, a positive-feedback loop that further concentrates probability mass on the $\pi_{\theta}(c)\cdot\alpha(c)$-favoured corner.

Consequence. Iterating (F1) to (F3), the system converges on a narrow subset of mechanism categories, those jointly favoured by the proposer’s prior and the acceptance noise floor, independently of whether those categories contain the largest true improvements. Inside the loop this manifests as continued growth of $m^{\text{opt}}$ through increasingly fine-grained edits within a shrinking category set. Outside the loop, the audit and blind metrics improve only insofar as the favoured categories happen to contain genuine capability-affecting edits, a property the dynamics does not select for. The faithfulness gap $\Delta^{\text{faith}}_{t}$ (Eq. 1) therefore widens monotonically.

Testable predictions. The account yields six predictions that organize the empirical study:

• P1.

  Surface diversity $\mathrm{S}_{t}$ is largely orthogonal to collapse, since $\pi_{\theta}(c)$ can sharpen without lexical repetition of diffs.

• P2.

  Proposers whose pretraining yields broader categorical priors should collapse later and less deeply.

• P3.

  Raising proposer sampling temperature redistributes mass within categories but does not alter $\pi_{\theta}(c)$, and should therefore not arrest collapse.

• P4.

  Memory-based deduplication of recently accepted edits prevents semantic-cluster cycling but leaves $\pi_{\theta}(c)$ untouched; it should reduce $\Delta\mathrm{C}$ only modestly.

• P5.

  Interventions that directly re-weight the effective $\pi_{\theta}(c)$, category-coverage incentives, attack (F1) at its root and should yield larger reductions in $\Delta\mathrm{C}$.

• P6.

  Held-out audits are the only mechanism that can undo edits that exploit the gap between the in-loop and the audited metric, since by construction the gap is invisible inside the loop.

The four diagnostic axes operationalize the antecedent of each prediction: $\mathrm{S}_{t}$ for P1, $\mathrm{H}_{t}$ together with $\mathrm{C}_{t}$ and $\mathrm{V}_{t}$ for P2 to P5, and $\Delta^{\text{faith}}_{t}$ for P6. The three DAPS components correspond directly: pem addresses (P4), ccr addresses (P5), and hvg addresses (P6). The absence of an analogous DAPS component for (P3) is itself a prediction of the model. That is, raising temperature is not a designed intervention because the account claims it would not help. The longer-horizon run of Appendix L is a further test: because (F1) to (F3) compound with iteration count, the account predicts deeper rather than self-correcting collapse, which is what we observe.

Table 7 reports the per-iteration timing decomposition on T2. hvg dominates the DAPS overhead at $\sim$$3.5$ seconds per iteration (amortized $35$-second audit evaluations every $K{=}10$ iterations); ccr and pem are negligible. The single blind evaluation per run adds $35$ seconds once, i.e. $0.02\%$ of a $300$-iteration budget. On the other three tasks, the total overhead is similar in absolute terms but varies modestly as a percentage with audit evaluation length: $1.4\%$ on T1 (validation perplexity over a $0.5$B-token shard takes longest), $1.2\%$ on T3, and $0.7\%$ on T4.

Convergence trajectories on T1, T3, and T4 mirror Figure 4: DAPS and Vanilla AR are statistically indistinguishable through the first $\sim$$150$ iterations and remain within one standard deviation of each other at $T{=}300$. Per-task scalar summaries (iterations to reach $80\%$ of Vanilla AR’s terminal gain) are $187_{\pm 14}$ vs $192_{\pm 16}$ on T1, $108_{\pm 9}$ vs $109_{\pm 10}$ on T3, and $96_{\pm 7}$ vs $98_{\pm 8}$ on T4.

Table 8 reports the sensitivity of DAPS to each of its hyperparameters, with the remaining values fixed at the main-experiment defaults and the proposer fixed to Claude Opus 4.7. All rows are averaged over $3$ seeds on T2; per-row standard deviations are below $0.05$ on $\rho^{\text{audit}}_{T}$ and below $1.5$ on $\bar{g}^{\text{opt}}_{T}$. Defaults are highlighted in bold.

Five qualitative observations on Table 8 guide hyperparameter selection in practice. First, $\tau_{m}$ exhibits a sharp failure mode at $0.95$: pem rejects almost no candidates and $\rho^{\text{audit}}_{T}$ collapses back toward the Vanilla AR value ($0.46$), confirming that semantic deduplication carries most of the diversity recovery rather than the other two components alone. Second, $\tau_{m}{=}0.75$ damages in-loop gain by starving the proposer (too many candidates rejected before reaching the executor) without commensurately improving faithfulness. Third, $M$ is comparatively forgiving in the central range, but $M{=}50$ allows semantic cycling to re-emerge within a $W{=}20$ window and $M{=}500$ begins to over-suppress legitimate revisits of previously useful edit categories. Fourth, $\tau_{c}$ is essentially flat in the range tested, since the category-coverage reweighting acts as a soft prior on rare categories whose exact temperature matters little. Fifth, $\tau_{h}$ and $K$ trade in-loop gain against faithfulness in opposite directions: aggressive auditing ($\tau_{h}{=}70$th, $K{=}5$) slightly raises $\rho^{\text{audit}}_{T}$ at the cost of $\bar{g}^{\text{opt}}_{T}$, while loose auditing ($\tau_{h}{=}90$th, $K{=}20$) preserves in-loop gain but lets Goodhart edits accumulate between audits. The chosen defaults sit near the knee of both trade-offs.

Inspecting the accepted-edit logs reveals a recurring pattern under Vanilla AR. On T1, the first $\sim$$50$ iterations show a broad mix of optimizer, architectural, and data-mixing edits. By iteration $200$, $74\%$ of accepted edits modify the learning-rate schedule or AdamW hyperparameters; many are micro-tunings (e.g., warmup steps $200\to 220$, $\beta_{2}$ $0.95\to 0.96$) that nudge the in-loop validation loss without affecting LAMBADA or C4 perplexity. On T3, a striking $61\%$ of late-stage edits are variants of “increase chain-of-thought temperature” or “add an arithmetic-only loss term”; audited ARC-Easy accuracy is flat under these. Under DAPS, the edit stream remains qualitatively heterogeneous through iteration $300$: representative late-stage edits on T1 include “swap RMSNorm for LayerNorm with re-tuned $\epsilon$,” “insert a curriculum filter on token-length,” and “modify attention-mask handling for packed sequences.” These are not necessarily better edits, but they sample the edit space rather than concentrating on a single mode.

To complement the quantitative collapse signals reported in §4.4, we present representative accepted-edit diffs sampled from the T1 logs (single-GPU nanochat-style pretraining on the autoresearch framework of Karpathy (2026), where the agent is permitted to modify only train.py). Hunk headers report iteration index and the mechanism category assigned by the procedure of §3.2. Diffs are paraphrased and trimmed to a few lines of relevant context for legibility. The full version of verbatim logs will be released.

Table 9 indexes the checks on which the claims of §4.2 and §4.3 rest. Each row names a threat to those claims, the check that addresses it, and the appendix that reports the outcome; the numbers appear only in the referenced appendix and are not restated here. Across every check the direction of the collapse and the ordering Vanilla AR $<$ diversity baselines $<$ DAPS are preserved. On this basis we scope the headline claims to ARLs that edit ML pipelines at single-GPU executor scale over horizons up to $1{,}000$ iterations, and treat evidence outside that setting as preliminary.

This appendix specifies the information flow among the three evaluations of §3.3 and reports the results that Table 3 summarizes.

Roles and partitions. Table 10 lists the exact dataset or partition used for each role and task. Only $m^{\text{opt}}$ is visible to the proposer. $m^{\text{audit}}$ is read by hvg once every $K{=}10$ iterations and by the calibration of $\tau_{h}$ over the first $30$ iterations, in both cases through a scalar comparison; the proposer never observes audit values, per-example outcomes, or the identity of audit examples, and the failure notice appended to $h$ is templated and value-free. $m^{\text{blind}}$ is evaluated once, after the run terminates, by a separate offline script that has no channel back into the loop. Baselines B1 to B6 consume no audit signal, so for them both $\rho^{\text{audit}}_{T}$ and $\rho^{\text{blind}}_{T}$ are pure post-hoc evaluations; B7, B8, and DAPS consume the audit signal at the same cadence, cost, and feedback format.

Per-task faithfulness. Table 11 gives $\rho^{\text{audit}}_{T}$ and $\rho^{\text{blind}}_{T}$ per task at $T{=}300$ over $3$ seeds. DAPS retains its advantage on sets it has never influenced, and Vanilla AR, which consumes no audit signal, shows an audit-to-blind drop of comparable size, so the drop is attributable to benchmark idiosyncrasy rather than to leakage through the gate. The gate fires $2.7\pm 0.9$ times per $300$-iteration run.

Absolute values. Table 12 reports absolute audit-metric values so that the practical magnitude of the movements can be judged directly. For T1 these correspond to log-perplexity reductions of $0.058$ nats (Vanilla AR) and $0.108$ nats (DAPS) against in-loop loss reductions of $0.142$ and $0.139$, reproducing the T1 ratios of Table 2. In-loop absolutes follow the same pattern: T2 dev win-rate rises from $38.4$ to $47.3$ (Vanilla AR) and $47.2$ (DAPS), and T3 GSM8K dev exact match from $31.2$ to $42.9$ and $42.7$.

To check $\rho_{T}$ and $\Delta^{\text{faith}}$ measure Goodharting rather than benchmark mismatch, we ran two control sets whose ground truth is known by construction.

Positive controls. We curated $12$ known-good edits from published recipes, including the nanoGPT speedrun lineage and open post-training changelogs: rotary position embeddings, a SwiGLU MLP, fused optimizer kernels that raise tokens processed per fixed budget, sequence-length filtering, and corrected initialization scaling, among others. Each was applied in isolation to the T1 and T3 starting pipelines.

Negative controls. We constructed $8$ deliberately proxy-only edits: dev-shard-specific example ordering on T1, judge-phrasing tweaks on T2, and dev-tuned answer-format templates on T4.

Table 13 shows that under our task pairs $\rho$ separates genuine improvement ($\rho\approx 1$) from proxy-only improvement ($\rho\approx 0$), which is exactly the construct the main claims require. Two further observations argue against benign distribution shift as an explanation of $\rho_{T}<1$ inside the loop. First, RandSearch shares the identical task pairs but selects edits non-adaptively and attains $0.74$ to $0.81$ (Table 2), so the pairs themselves support near-full transfer and the low $\rho_{T}$ under Vanilla AR is induced by adaptive optimization. Second, a static mismatch would produce a constant offset, whereas $\Delta^{\text{faith}}_{t}$ widens monotonically within a fixed task pair (Figure 2). Finally, each task carries two independent audit components; reporting $\rho$ per component, the ordering Vanilla AR $<$ diversity baselines $<$ DAPS holds on all $8$ components individually (Vanilla AR range $0.33$ to $0.52$; DAPS $0.69$ to $0.85$) and on the $4$ blind sets of Appendix G, i.e. on $12$ independent evaluations in total.

The collapse signal should not hinge on any single measurement choice. We therefore recomputed cluster decay $\Delta\mathrm{C}$ on T2 under systematic variations of the summarizer, the embedding model, and the clustering algorithm (Table 14). Per-window $\mathrm{C}_{t}$ trajectories correlate at Spearman $>0.93$ across all variants, and the Vanilla AR against DAPS gap is preserved in every row.

Human labels. Three annotators labelled $300$ sampled edits with the categories of Table 1 (majority vote; $\kappa=0.81$ against our rule-based parser, in line with the parser-against-LLM $\kappa=0.84$ of §3.2). Mechanism entropy computed from the human labels drops from $1.72$ to $1.21$ nats under Vanilla AR, closely tracking the parser-based $1.76$ to $1.18$ of Figure 2.

A measurement with no LLM in the path. An AST-based rule detector applied directly to the raw code diffs reproduces the Appendix D statistic: $71\%$ of late-stage T1 edits touch optimizer or learning-rate-schedule code, against $74\%$ for the parser-based count. Independently, $\Delta^{\text{faith}}_{t}$ uses only executed metric values, with no summarizer, embedding, clustering, or taxonomy anywhere in its computation, and it widens exactly when $\mathrm{C}_{t}$ and $\mathrm{H}_{t}$ collapse (Figure 2, Table 4).

A hand-designed taxonomy could in principle place category boundaries so as to manufacture the entropy drop, even though ours was frozen before our runs (§3.2). We therefore recomputed $\mathrm{H}_{t}$ on T2 under four alternative taxonomies. Coarse: four super-categories merging Table 1 (Optimization $=$ Optimizer $+$ Scheduling; Model $=$ Architecture $+$ Numerical $+$ Decoding; Data and Objective $=$ Data $+$ Loss $+$ Regularization; Other). Fine: $17$ subcategories obtained by re-clustering the pilot with a stricter merge criterion. Random: $10$ taxonomies of nine categories each, obtained by randomly re-partitioning the $17$ subcategories. Human: the $300$ human-labelled edits of Appendix I.

Table 15 shows that the collapse and its mitigation are invariant to granularity and to random boundary placement. Two taxonomy-free measurements corroborate this: the semantic cluster count $\mathrm{C}_{t}$ already reported in the main paper, and a Kozachenko-Leonenko $k$-nearest-neighbour differential-entropy estimate (Kozachenko and Leonenko, 1987) computed directly on the description embeddings, which drops by $0.44$ nats under Vanilla AR and $0.07$ nats under DAPS.

Corpus similarity $\mathrm{V}_{t}$ is a descriptive statistic (§3.2), and this appendix quantifies how well it tracks human judgement. We sampled $120$ edit descriptions stratified by $\mathrm{V}_{t}$ quartile across tasks and asked three NLP researchers, blind to $\mathrm{V}_{t}$ and to the generating method, to rate each on a $1$ to $5$ scale for novelty relative to common ML practice (inter-rater Krippendorff $\alpha=0.61$; Ford, 2004). The Spearman correlation between $\mathrm{V}_{t}$ and mean human novelty is $-0.47$ (bootstrap $95\%$ CI $-0.60$ to $-0.31$), i.e. moderate validity in the expected direction. We additionally tested wording sensitivity by re-summarizing every description with a different LLM, which changes $\mathrm{V}_{t}$ by only $0.021$ on average, so the statistic is not dominated by one summarizer’s phrasing. Together these results support keeping $\mathrm{V}_{t}$ as a secondary axis reported with the caveats stated in §3.2, and not as evidence of retrieval.

Table 16 extends T2 along the two axes flagged in the Limitations section, with one seed per new configuration. Over the longest horizon our budget allows, collapse deepens rather than self-corrects, which is what the conceptual model of Appendix A predicts, since the feedback mechanisms (F1) to (F3) compound with iteration count; DAPS remains stable over the same horizon. A first step up in target-model scale reproduces the $1$B pattern. Note that the main study already includes frontier-scale proposers (§4.6), so the axes that remain open are executor and target scale, and horizons beyond $1{,}000$ iterations.

Our headline claims concern ARLs that edit ML pipelines. As a first probe outside that scope, we built a performance-engineering loop in which the agent edits a Python log-analytics pipeline to minimize wall-clock runtime, subject to exact-output correctness checks. Here $m^{\text{opt}}$ is runtime on $20$ development inputs, and $m^{\text{audit}}$ is runtime on $40$ inputs drawn from a different data snapshot together with the correctness suite. A new seven-category taxonomy (algorithmic complexity, data structures, batching and I/O, caching, parallelism, memory layout, micro-optimization) was derived with the same pilot protocol as §3.2, from public performance-tuning commits rather than ML logs.

With $150$ iterations, $2$ seeds, and the same proposer, we observe the same signature: surface diversity is flat ($0.71$ to $0.70$) while semantic clusters fall from $11$ to $5$ ($\Delta\mathrm{C}=0.55$), $66\%$ of late-stage accepted edits are caching or micro-optimizations, and $\rho_{T}$ is $0.58$ under Vanilla AR against $0.81$ under DAPS. This suggests that neither the phenomenon nor the mitigation is specific to ML-pipeline editing, but the study is small and single-domain, so we report it as preliminary and keep the headline claims scoped as stated in §1.

Every baseline received the same tuning budget as DAPS’s own calibration: a three-point grid per key hyperparameter, evaluated on the first $50$ iterations of T2, with the best setting then fixed for all tasks and seeds. The grids are: HiTemp proposer temperature $\{1.0,1.2,1.5\}$; R-Diverse-A similarity threshold $\{0.80,0.85,0.90\}$ and memory size $\{100,200,300\}$; Prism-A cluster-coverage reward weight $\{0.1,0.5,1.0\}$; Reflexion reflective-summary length $\{64,128,256\}$ tokens; HO-EarlyStop and HO-Revert audit interval $K\in\{5,10,20\}$. RandSearch has no tunable hyperparameter beyond the size of its harvested edit corpus, which we fixed at $200$ modifications. For DAPS the corresponding sweep is reported in Appendix C.