aiqbench analysis
This research investigates the dynamics of agent loops where an AI writes conclusions into a persistent store it later retrieves, revealing that infinite-tenure limits create distinct state-space edges rather than simple contamination decay. The study identifies a single measured primitive, the copy function, which accurately predicts drift direction on real-world facts without fitted parameters and demonstrates that scale alone cannot rescue frontier capture in these self-referential systems.
Self-Cleaning and Captured Anyway: One Measured Primitive for Error in a Store an Agent Writes to Itself, and What a Falling Score Actually Measures
arXiv:2609.25052v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: "An agent that writes its conclusions into a store it later retrieves from closes a loop usually reported as one-way contamination. Taking the loop to the infinite-tenure limit against an append-only store gives a different picture: because writing never deletes, the reachable state space has a hard upper edge at (n-1)/n, so the outcome is a choice between two edges rather than a decay. At f_0 = 0.9 the interval between the two modes holds 3.6% of 220 runs where a uniform spread would put 20.6%, and is strictly empty on the first 15; the pooled mean describes 8.2% of the runs it summarises, the median 68.2%. Everything the model contributes is carried by one measured primitive with no fitted parameter, the copy function \gamma(\phi): on 36 Wikidata facts, sign(\hat{\gamma} - \gamma_{crit}), with \gamma_{crit} = 1/k at r = 0, w = 1, predicts the direction of drift on 353 of 360 real-fact runs (39 of 40 synthetic in the same batch). Scale does not rescue the store: pooled frontier capture is 0.850, with claude-sonnet-4.5 captured on 20 of 20 seeds against our registered prediction of <0.5. What the interval tests is distinguishability rather than count: on the real facts, multi-valued runs have 6.4x its occupancy of the rest. It survives at f_0 in {0.1, 0.3, 0.5}, capture peaks at f_0 = 0.5, and of four interventions with criteria frozen first, timing dominates fraction at matched budget while a consistency gate drives every model to 0.993. The resampling unit is the seed, at a design effect of 3.75 on a pooled level: under a 44-seed control the ordering supporting claim 4 collapses from Spearman +0.98 at three seeds to +0.31-0.80 at forty-four, while claim 2's ordering is exact there (+1.00, p = 0.017). All 87 graded rows are in Appendix W, 37 of them graded withdrawn, failed, self-correcting, undecidable or an acknowledged limit, against 50 that are not."
Abstract:"An agent that writes its conclusions into a store it later retrieves from closes a loop usually reported as one-way contamination. Taking the loop to the infinite-tenure limit against an append-only store gives a different picture: because writing never deletes, the reachable state space has a hard upper edge at (n-1)/n, so the outcome is a choice between two edges rather than a decay. At f_0 = 0.9 the interval between the two modes holds 3.6% of 220 runs where a uniform spread would put 20.6%, and is strictly empty on the first 15; the pooled mean describes 8.2% of the runs it summarises, the median 68.2%. Everything the model contributes is carried by one measured primitive with no fitted parameter, the copy function \gamma(\phi): on 36 Wikidata facts, sign(\hat{\gamma} - \gamma_{crit}), with \gamma_{crit} = 1/k at r = 0, w = 1, predicts the direction of drift on 353 of 360 real-fact runs (39 of 40 synthetic in the same batch). Scale does not rescue the store: pooled frontier capture is 0.850, with claude-sonnet-4.5 captured on 20 of 20 seeds against our registered prediction of <0.5. What the interval tests is distinguishability rather than count: on the real facts, multi-valued runs have 6.4x its occupancy of the rest. It survives at f_0 in {0.1, 0.3, 0.5}, capture peaks at f_0 = 0.5, and of four interventions with criteria frozen first, timing dominates fraction at matched budget while a consistency gate drives every model to 0.993. The resampling unit is the seed, at a design effect of 3.75 on a pooled level: under a 44-seed control the ordering supporting claim 4 collapses from Spearman +0.98 at three seeds to +0.31-0.80 at forty-four, while claim 2's ordering is exact there (+1.00, p = 0.017). All 87 graded rows are in Appendix W, 37 of them graded withdrawn, failed, self-correcting, undecidable or an acknowledged limit, against 50 that are not."
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.25052 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.25052v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.25052 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
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.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 414 words
Related coverage

Implementing and Evaluating a Basic Per-Action Monitor for Safer Evals
METR · Sep 27, 2026
Synthesis Superintelligence: from Semiconductors to Superconductors — Periodic Labs’ Liam Fedus and Ekin Dogus Cubuk
Latent Space · Oct 8, 2026

2026.10: You are here 📍
Home Assistant · Oct 7, 2026
DI Series: Serving Kimi-K3 MXFP4 Wide-EP Disaggregated on AMD Instinct MI300X and MI325X
AMD · Oct 8, 2026