{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "builder_plan": {
    "scenario": "Your coding assistant makes changes that still need substantial repair before merging.",
    "change": "Try the technique on held-out issues from a repository with reliable tests.",
    "baseline": "The same coding agent, repository snapshot, tools, and token budget.",
    "steps": [
      "Locate the paper's implementation and check its license, model support, data needs, and hardware requirements. Stop here if you cannot obtain the required artifacts.",
      "Save a small set of representative product tasks and expected outcomes. Keep evaluation tasks out of any training or tuning, and choose quality and cost limits before running.",
      "Run the baseline and the proposed change on identical inputs. Keep other settings fixed and repeat paired runs to expose variation.",
      "Save per-task outputs, failures, timings, and all usage costs. Review regressions before expanding the test."
    ],
    "measure": "Correct patches, regression failures, human repair time, and total cost per accepted change.",
    "decision": "Keep the change only if it meets your preselected quality and latency limits and improves the metric you care about after setup and operating costs. Otherwise retain the baseline. This is an exploration plan, not a validated recommendation."
  },
  "builder_review": null,
  "arxiv_id": "2609.35328",
  "title": "Hyper Algorithm Design Agent: Evolving Learnable Optimizer from Zero",
  "summary": "The method replaces hand-crafted design of Meta-Black-Box-Optimization algorithms with a dual LLM-agent loop that evolves the MetaBBO codebase and recursively modifies the agents themselves. Its cost is substantial and unbounded: repeated LLM API calls plus full evaluation runs of each candidate optimizer, which is impractical on a limited cloud budget and a single GPU. It can fail by producing overfit or degenerate code variants, depending on fragile evaluation feedback, and its generality claims rest on early results that have not been validated for production adoption.",
  "rationale": "This is an exploratory framework for automating the design of learning-assisted optimizers, a niche the reader does not operate in, and its open-ended LLM-loop compute and API costs exceed a constrained budget without a quantified production gain.",
  "technique": "LLM-agent code evolution of MetaBBO optimizers",
  "family": "agentes_de_codigo",
  "recommendation": "observar",
  "published": "2026-09-28",
  "as_of": "2026-10-18",
  "editorial_status": "indexed",
  "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.35328",
  "independent_implementations": 1,
  "total_implementations": 2,
  "stars": 123,
  "citations": null,
  "claims": [
    {
      "claim_id": "claim-01",
      "statement": "The method replaces hand-crafted design of Meta-Black-Box-Optimization algorithms with a dual LLM-agent loop that evolves the MetaBBO codebase and recursively modifies the agents themselves. Its cost is substantial and unbounded: repeated LLM API calls plus full evaluation runs of each candidate optimizer, which is impractical on a limited cloud budget and a single GPU. It can fail by producing overfit or degenerate code variants, depending on fragile evaluation feedback, and its generality claims rest on early results that have not been validated for production adoption.",
      "basis": "inferred",
      "result": "",
      "baseline": "",
      "conditions": "",
      "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.35328",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    }
  ],
  "exposure_map": [
    {
      "dimension": "quality",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "compute",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "latency",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "operations",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "compatibility",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "security",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "data_and_training",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "reproducibility",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    }
  ],
  "risks": [],
  "minimum_test": [],
  "open_questions": [],
  "independent_tests": [],
  "lab_reproductions": [],
  "report_available": false,
  "validation_tier": "unknown",
  "evidence_tier": "unknown",
  "infrastructure_basis": "unknown",
  "equations": [],
  "equations_status": "not_fetched",
  "core_kind": "",
  "equations_fetched_at": "",
  "equations_source_url": "",
  "equations_source_sha256": "",
  "exposures_reviewed_at": "",
  "exposures_source_sha256": ""
}