Abstract
LLM-driven program evolution rests on three decisions: govern directs the search from accumulated evidence, propose constructs the next candidate, and judge settles validity and fitness. All three appear in every system, and existing work splits into two lines over who makes each. Controller-centric systems strengthen govern and neglect the autonomy of propose, which caps what evolution can reach. Agent-centric systems let a coding agent take over both govern and propose, at a cognitive and computational cost. Neither line protects the independent authority of judge, so benchmark reliability suffers. These failures share one root: autonomy is misallocated across the three decisions. We address this problem with EvoTrias, a separation-of-powers architecture in which each decision has one owner: Structured Governance for what spans evolution rounds, Open Proposal for construction inside a task, and Protected Judgment behind a private evaluator. These owners exchange typed contracts only, and runtime hooks reinforce the boundaries. This separation also lets EvoTrias run as a plugin that turns an existing coding agent into an evolution system. EvoTrias sets a new state of the art on mathematical, systems, and algorithm-design benchmarks. Three further results show what each owner buys: separating Governance from Proposal cuts token cost by 64%, Open Proposal extends evolution to a 680K-line industrial repository, and Protected Judgment keeps benchmark scores faithful to transfer.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.15309
