Abstract
Our previous ARC-AGI-3 agent bundled executable world modeling, scheduled simplification, and exact replay verification, leaving unclear which idea accounted for its performance. We address this attribution question with four nested Codex-based agents: a textual baseline; a flexible-interface executable world model without replay verification; the same executable model with scheduled simplification; and a fixed-interface verification treatment that retains simplification and requires exact reproduction of recorded observations. The main study evaluates all four agents with gpt-5.4 and gpt-5.5 at high and xhigh reasoning effort on the public ARC-AGI-3 games. Exploratory follow-ups evaluate the textual and verification variants with gpt-5.6-sol at xhigh and max. The most robust result is that every agent variant improves with a stronger model and with greater reasoning effort. Within each model-effort setting, differences among variants are smaller than anticipated, while the effects of individual components vary across settings. Requiring a persistent executable deliverable is not universally beneficial: the textual variant outperforms the flexible-interface executable variant in both gpt-5.5 settings. Simplification improves performance in three of the four model-effort settings, with the weakest setting as the only exception. The complete verification treatment ranks first in all four settings, although it uses substantially more resources. In the gpt-5.6-sol follow-up, the verification variant fully solves every public game at both reasoning efforts, achieves about 99% RHAE, and uses fewer than half the total actions of the human baseline. Because the model postdates these games and held-out performance remains untested, this result should be interpreted as saturation of the public set only.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.15439
