Organizations: EPIC Lab, Shanghai Jiao Tong University · University of Science and Technology of China · Shanghai University of Finance and Economics · Imperial College London · University of Cambridge · Nanyang Technological University · Fudan University · University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
Generating progressively harder reasoning problems requires synthesis procedures that adapt as the task distribution evolves. Existing task-level recursion reuses generated problems as seeds but leaves the construction harness unchanged. We present task-harness co-evolution, a framework for recursive harness self-improvement (RSI) in reasoning-data synthesis. Online self-improvement converts intermediate solver failures into reusable skills during generation. Post-task self-improvement revises skills, prompts, and workflows after each batch, adopting candidates only when they generate harder valid tasks within a bounded cost increase. Model weights and verification criteria remain fixed. Across mathematics, coding, and science, mean solver accuracy decreases from 100.0% to 54.8% over fourteen evolution rounds. Ablations show that combining both update schedules produces harder tasks than fixed-harness recursion or either schedule alone. The resulting data improves downstream SFT and GRPO performance. In particular, a 27B student fine-tuned on 10K synthesized mathematics examples achieves 62.5% mean-16 accuracy on APEX, competitive with selected frontier-model references. These results support adapting the synthesis harness alongside the tasks to generate increasingly challenging data with downstream training value.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Three reasoning-data synthesis regimes. (a) Fixed-pipeline synthesis maps independent seeds to outputs through the same harness H0 . (b) Task-level recursion feeds each generated task back as the next seed, while construction skills and workflows stay fixed. (c) Our approach recursively updates both tasks and the harness. A meta-agent uses generation logs and evaluation feedback, together with human-defined goals and update constraints, to revise skills, prompts, and workflows. Evaluated revisions guide subsequent generation under fixed verification criteria. Snowflakes and flames denote fixed and evolving harnesses, respectively.
Figure 2: Harder tasks, useful training data. (a) DeepSeek-V4-Pro accuracy falls from 100.0% to 54.8% across 150 seed chains (50 per domain, equally weighted). The line tracks Passed; Failed is its complement; the y-axis is truncated at 50%. (b) SFT on 10K synthesized math examples yields 62.5% APEX accuracy for a 27B student, competitive with selected frontier models. We evaluate all APEX models with 16 attempts per problem; the x-axis starts at 20%. APEX evaluation details: Appendix C .
Figure 3: Three-stage task–harness co-evolution. Stage 1 initializes screened seeds and H0 . Stage 2 updates skills during generation, yielding Hnonline . Stage 3 processes feedback after batch completion or budget exhaustion and uses human inputs to propose a candidate (top). Candidate and online baseline each synthesize one round from shared current tasks under matched limits (bottom). Adopt the first passing candidate; three rejections (initial proposal plus two retries) retain the online snapshot and discard post-task edits. The gate requires lower solver accuracy with bounded cost growth. Model weights and verifier logic remain fixed.
Training data
APEX Shortlist
HMMT Feb 2025
LCB v6
SciBench
Overall
Qwen3.5-4B Thinking (Baseline Model)
No additional training
32.4
73.5
55.8
71.8
58.4
Static Data Synthesis
OpenMathInstruct-2
33.6 ↑ 1.2
75.4 ↑ 1.9
52.6 ↓ 3.2
70.9 ↓ 0.9
58.1 ↓ 0.3
OpenCodeReasoning
27.5 ↓ 4.9
70.8 ↓ 2.7
58.7 ↑ 2.9
71.6 ↓ 0.2
57.2 ↓ 1.2
WildSci
28.2 ↓ 4.2
70.0 ↓ 3.5
53.6 ↓ 2.2
70.6 ↓ 1.2
55.6 ↓ 2.8
Table 1: GRPO with Qwen3.5-4B Thinking. Mean-16 accuracy (%; higher is better). Overall averages the four benchmarks; superscripts give percentage-point changes from the checkpoint. Changes are computed from the displayed scores. Bold marks column-best scores.
Figure 4: Difficulty progression. DeepSeek-V4-Pro accuracy (%; lower is harder) over (a) all 150 seed chains and (b–d) three domains of 50 seeds each. The shared y-axis spans 45–100%; full values are in Appendix D .
Figure 5: Update ablations. Four configurations on 50 shared seeds: fixed harness, online skill updates, post-task updates with candidate evaluation, and both schedules. Lower DeepSeek-V4-Pro accuracy indicates harder tasks; the y-axis starts at 45%.
Figure 6: Harness transfer and operator cost. (a) Frozen harnesses on 50 shared held-out mathematics seeds. (b) Per-round Extend/Revise/Verify costs divided by 50 reasoning seeds; other harness and search costs are excluded. Full values are in Appendix E .
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Qwen3.8-27B configuration
APEX
Gain (pp)
Before SFT
56.3
—
SFT on our 10K math examples
62.5
+6.2
Appendix
Table 3: 27B training gain on APEX. Mean-16 accuracy (%). Scores are rounded to one decimal; gains are computed from the displayed scores.
Model
APEX
Kimi K3 (Think)
65.6
Ours: Qwen3.8-27B + SFT
62.5
DeepSeek-v4-pro
61.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
60.9
GPT-5.4 (xhigh)
54.2
DeepSeek-v4-flash-0731
44.8
Appendix
Table 4: APEX reference comparison. Mean-16 accuracy (%) on APEX 2025, rounded to one decimal. All scores are from our own evaluations using MathArena. Only our 27B model receives additional training in this comparison.
Domain
r=0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
14
All (150)
100.0
97.7
92.8
89.2
85.5
81.5
77.3
72.8
68.3
64.3
59.7
54.8
Math (50)
100.0
98.5
91.0
87.5
84.0
80.0
75.5
70.0
65.5
62.0
57.0
50.0
Coding (50)
100.0
97.0
93.5
90.0
86.0
82.5
78.0
74.5
70.0
66.5
62.0
58.5
Science (50)
100.0
97.5
94.0
90.0
86.5
82.0
78.5
74.0
69.5
64.5
60.0
56.0
Appendix
Table 5: Difficulty progression. DeepSeek-V4-Pro accuracy (%; lower is harder) over the fixed seed cohort. The overall row is recomputed from the three equally weighted domains.
Configuration
r=0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Task-only
100.0
95.5
87.0
78.0
70.5
72.5
70.0
73.5
Online only
100.0
94.5
86.0
78.0
70.0
64.5
65.0
67.0
Post-task only
100.0
94.0
85.5
77.5
68.5
63.5
62.0
59.0
Full
100.0
91.0
84.0
75.5
65.5
57.0
54.0
50.0
Appendix
Table 6: Update ablations. DeepSeek-V4-Pro accuracy (%; lower is harder) on 50 shared seeds. Online only and Post-task only refer to the update mechanisms in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 , respectively. Bold marks the lowest non-initial accuracy in each column.
Harness
r=0
2
4
6
8
10
Initial H0
100.0
95.5
87.0
78.0
70.5
70.0
Evolved H14
100.0
90.0
83.5
70.0
62.5
52.0
Appendix
Table 7: Frozen-harness comparison. DeepSeek-V4-Pro accuracy (%; lower is harder) on the tasks generated from 50 shared held-out mathematics seeds. Both harnesses remain frozen.
Configuration
Measure
r=2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Task-only
Accuracy
95.5
87.0
78.0
70.5
72.5
70.0
73.5
Cost
1.022
1.165
1.252
1.364
1.368
1.372
1.332
Full
Accuracy
91.0
84.0
75.5
65.5
57.0
54.0
50.0
Cost
1.042
1.199
0.754
0.887
0.931
1.032
1.065
Appendix
Table 8: Accuracy and generation-operator cost. DeepSeek-V4-Pro accuracy (%) and per-round cost (USD per original seed) on 50 reasoning seeds. Lower is better for both measures.
Parameter
SFT (35B / 27B)
GRPO (4B)
Training hardware
16× NVIDIA H20
16× NVIDIA H20
Epochs
2
1
Learning rate
10−5
10−6
Training batch size
16 examples
32 prompts
Sequence limits
65,536 total
3,072 prompt; 65,536 response
Distributed strategy
FSDP2
FSDP
Appendix
Table 9: Downstream training hyperparameters. The SFT settings apply to both the 35B and 27B students. Sequence limits are token ceilings, not observed average lengths. Dashes denote values not specified here.
Data synthesis for training large reasoning models offers a scalable alternative to limited, human-curated datasets, enabling the creation of high-quality data. However, existing approaches face several challenges: (i) indiscriminate generation that ignores the solver's ability and yields low-value problems, or reliance on complex data pipelines to balance problem difficulty; and (ii) a lack of reasoning in problem generation, leading to shallow problem variants. In this paper, we develop a problem generator that reasons explicitly to plan problem directions before synthesis and adapts difficulty to the solver's ability. We recover problem-design CoT from human-authored multi-part questions, using later subquestions as targets to infer the design rationale. These traces initialize the generator, which is then optimized with a seed-conditioned reward based on solver answer consistency. The reward guides difficulty adjustment relative to each seed while favoring problems near the solver's competence boundary. Across 10 mathematical and general reasoning benchmarks, our method outperforms seed-only training by 2.69 and 3.39 percentage points after one and three rounds, respectively. The framework also extends to vision-language models. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/WalkerWorldPeace/Reasoning-Synthesis.
Yongxian Wei, Yilin Zhao, Li Shen +7
Tsinghua University · Tencent · Sun Yat-sen University +1
Self-evolving LLM agents promise to improve autonomously through continual interaction and learning, reducing their dependence on manually curated supervision. Realizing this promise requires not only updating the agent, but also evolving its training experience as its capabilities change. However, most existing pipelines rely on static datasets or separately updated synthesis models, causing previously useful tasks to become trivial while overly difficult tasks remain uninformative. This growing mismatch between agent capability and training experience limits sustained self-improvement. To address this problem, we propose SynCo, an agentic data synthesis co-training framework for self-evolving LLMs based on multi-agent reinforcement learning. SynCo jointly optimizes two independently parameterized agents: a Synthesizer that constructs training tasks from the Reasoner's evolving capability state, and a Reasoner that learns from the resulting experience. Each synthesized task induces multiple Reasoner rollouts whose outcomes provide complementary rewards to both agents. Correctness feedback improves the Reasoner, while task quality, answer reliability, and outcome-grounded teachability guide the Synthesizer. Their updates are fed back into subsequent synthesis rounds, allowing the task-solving policy and its training distribution to evolve together. Extensive experiments across eight mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that SynCo substantially outperforms a broad range of existing synthetic-data methods and controlled baselines, achieving the strongest overall performance while deriving most of its gains from previously unsolved problems.
Wei Yang, Shawn Li, Yuehan Qin +8
University of Southern California · The George Washington University · Georgia Institute of Technology
Synthesizing high-quality mathematical reasoning data without human priors remains a significant challenge. Current approaches typically rely on seed data mutation or simple prompt engineering, often suffering from mode collapse and limited logical complexity. This paper proposes a hierarchical synthesis framework that formulates data synthesis as an unsupervised optimization problem over a constraint graph followed by semantic instantiation, rather than treating it as a direct text generation task. We introduce a Legislator-Executor paradigm: The Legislator adversarially evolves structured generation blueprints encoding the constraints of the problem, while the Executor instantiates these specifications into diverse natural language scenarios. This decoupling of skeleton design from linguistic realization enables a prioritized focus on constructing complex and diverse logical structures, thereby guiding high-quality data synthesis. Experiments conducted on a total of 10 models across the Qwen, Llama, Mistral, and Gemma series demonstrate that our method achieves notable results: models fine-tuned on 1K synthesized samples outperform widely-used datasets of comparable scale (LIMO, s1K) across eight mathematical benchmarks, exhibiting superior out-of-distribution generalization.
Zixiong Yu, Jun Rao, Guhan Chen +5
Huawei Large Model Data Technology Lab · Tsinghua University · Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen +1