BIGBANG

Pursuing Open-Ended Intelligence through
Self-Evolving Synthesis of Verifiable Frontier Tasks

01 Overview

Intelligence that
evolves itself.

BigBang is a general-purpose large language model evolved from Qwen3.6-35B-A3B through efficient post-training, driven by an adversarial, self-evolving synthetic data framework grounded in verifiable frontier research tasks. Trained with simple SFT on only 10.6K high-difficulty examples, BigBang-v1 rivals agents trained with extensive continual pre-training and reinforcement learning.

Frontier

Problems at the boundary of human knowledge — including those for which no known optimum exists.

Verifiable

Candidate solutions can be assessed using objective rules, formal methods, computational tools, simulators, or experimental feedback.

02 Results

State of the art,
with SFT only.

The strongest overall performance among ∼30B ReAct-based search agents — without continual pre-training, without RL.

BigBang-v1 (Ours, SFT) SFT only More than SFT · >30B · closed-source
03 Method

The training flywheel.

Real frontier tasks expose capability gaps; a generator–critic loop turns them into high-quality synthetic data; the trained model is validated on real tasks — and the next round of evolution begins.

Generator Agent

Strategy Update · Task Construction

A code agent running a continuous search over programs: it directly modifies, executes, and debugs the data-synthesis code, then refines its generation strategy from critic feedback. An agent harness records motivation, results, and failure causes each round, enabling long-horizon exploration.

Critic Agent

Quality Evaluation · Constraint Checks

A two-level adversarial review. Basic constraints — trajectory information, tool-use validity, format integrity — quickly remove degraded outputs. Higher-level evaluation judges evidence, contradiction, verifiability, and research depth: a fast proxy for training value.

Meta-Critic

Outcome-Calibrated Co-Evolution

Model variants trained on sampled pipelines are evaluated on held-out real research tasks. The meta-critic compares the critic's assessments with observed training outcomes — distinguishing tasks that merely appear difficult from those that genuinely improve capability.

04 Citation

Cite this work.