Recursive self-improvement (RSI) aims to transform interaction experience into persistent improvements, yet external feedback is costly and world-model predictions may become unreliable as policies evolve. We introduce RSI-Anything, a domain-general framework built on JEPA-Anything that uses predictive world models to guide action and learning-data selection. Observed feedback drives policy or workflow improvement and conditional world-model adaptation, while component and compatibility checks govern the retention of updated policy-model pairs. Across diverse computational and scientific domains, RSI-Anything demonstrates substantial gains. In code repair, with the coder fixed, success increases from 26.3% with a static verifier to 29.2% through predictive selection and 31.2% after world-model adaptation, at comparable test usage. Graphical user interface (GUI) evaluations showed higher task completion, while average actions decrease by 39.4%. Across five successive policy versions, laboratory-planning scores more than double from 21.80% to 46.01%. In reaction optimization, RSI-Anything achieves 96.15% mean best observed yield versus 82.16% for Bayesian optimization under the same 40-experiment budget. An end-to-end immune-science application further connects workflow evolution and predictive modeling with therapeutic hypothesis generation. These results demonstrate how predictive world models and retained system updates enable recursive improvement across diverse environments.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: RSI-Anything overview. Building on the cross-domain predictive foundation of JEPA-Anything, RSI-Anything uses world-model predictions to support understanding, planning, and action selection across diverse tasks. Interaction feedback drives policy or workflow updates and conditional world-model adaptation. Component and compatibility checks determine which policy–model pair is retained to guide the next round of interaction and learning, closing the recursive self-improvement loop.
Figure 2: RSI-Anything couples prediction-guided action with retained system updates. a , Building on JEPA-Anything, world-model predictions guide candidate selection for external evaluation. Only the executed candidate (B) yields paired prediction–observation feedback. Feedback supports policy or workflow revision and reliability assessment; world-model adaptation depends on prediction reliability, available data, and budget. Component and compatibility checks determine the retained policy–model pair, which shapes candidates and learning experiences in the next round. b , The shared mechanism is instantiated in code repair, GUI interaction, laboratory planning, and reaction optimization. An end-to-end immune-science application connects workflow evolution, immune world-model construction, analysis with self-correction, and prospective hypothesis generation.
Object
Change rule
Carried forward
Task and evaluation specification
Fixed for the run
Task objectives and definitions, interfaces, evaluation criteria, constraints, budget limits, and acceptance and stopping rules
Task state and experience
Actions and observations revise the state and extend prediction–observation records
Current task state for subsequent actions; accumulated records for selection and learning
Policy configuration θ
Feedback-driven policy learning or workflow revision proposes a candidate version; component and pair checks govern acceptance
Accepted policy configuration; otherwise the current version
World model ϕd
Prediction unreliability, sufficient data and budget trigger an adaptation attempt; component and pair checks govern acceptance
Accepted predictor; otherwise the current version
Table 1: Fixed settings, update rules, and retained state in a recursive run.
Figure 3: Prediction-guided selection and world-model adaptation in code repair. a , Illustrative repair of a non-convergent loop, from candidate patches and predicted outcomes to execution and test feedback. A–C depict example patches; the benchmark uses a fixed coder and four candidates per round. Feedback supports predictor updates in the adaptive configuration. Panels b–d report results on 200 CodeContests tasks across three seeds with up to three feedback rounds. b , Final hidden-test all-pass rate. c , Candidate-ranking accuracy and five-class Brier score for the static verifier and the fixed-world-model configuration. Higher ranking accuracy and lower Brier score indicate better predictive performance. d , Mean online test-suite calls per task. e,f , Final full-test success averaged over three seeds on APPS Introductory (1,000 problems) and LiveCodeBench v6 (1,055 problems), respectively. Fixed WM denotes RSI-Anything with a fixed world model (CURE-WM-Lite); Adaptive WM denotes RSI-Anything with world-model adaptation. Green shades identify world-model-based methods; gray shades identify baselines.
Selection method
Hidden all-pass
Online calls/task
Random-K
26.0%
3.72
Capacity-matched static verifier
26.3%
3.72
RSI-Anything with a fixed world model (CURE-WM-Lite)
29.2%
3.71
RSI-Anything with world-model adaptation
31.2%
3.72
Table 2: Three-round repair on CodeContests Li et al. (2022) under a shared coder and candidate budget. Both RSI-Anything configurations use world-model-guided candidate selection: one keeps the world model fixed (CURE-WM-Lite), and the other additionally adapts it using feedback.
Figure 4: Task completion and action behavior in GUI environments. a,b , Illustrative MiniWoB++ checkbox selection and OSWorld spreadsheet completion tasks, showing initial and target states. c , MiniWoB++ click-checkboxes success across baseline, adapted, and final configurations for RSI-Anything and the World-based control. d , OSWorld success-rate gains relative to the initial agent. The annotation gives the additional relative gain of RSI-Anything over RLAnything; all gains are relative percentages. e–g , Mean actions per episode, repeated-click count, and number of episodes with incorrect submissions, respectively, for the RSI-Anything configurations in c . Lines connect evaluated configurations.
Figure 5: Successive policy improvement with RSI-Anything on the 200-task LabHorizon F200 Level-2 benchmark Stanford Cong Lab (2026) . a , Illustrative planning workflow connecting protocol context, a 4B policy, predictive evaluation of action sequences and parameters, an execution plan, and assessment. Dashed feedback paths depict update routes in the framework; the quantitative comparison below follows retained policy versions. b , Five consecutive versions of the same 4B policy from one self-improvement process. c , Final Score for each version, combining action-sequence similarity and parameter accuracy. The dashed line marks the Actor–Simulator–Selector reference at 45.32% . Versions are ordered by development sequence; spacing is schematic.
System
L1 Acc.
L2 Final
Grok 4.3 xAI (2026)
0.555
0.3244
Gemini 3.1 Pro Google (2026)
0.465
0.3263
GPT-5.5 OpenAI (2026)
0.535
0.2276
Kimi K2.6 Moonshot AI (2026)
0.550
0.3150
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B Qwen Team (2026) , direct
0.475
0.2534
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, trained
0.635
0.4100
Table 3: LabHorizon benchmark scores for reference systems Stanford Cong Lab (2026) and RSI-Anything.
Figure 6: Reaction-condition optimization with RSI-Anything (green) and Bayesian optimization (gray). a , Illustrative GC-screen workflow connecting the reaction setup, catalyst/base/solvent options, prediction-guided condition selection, and measured yield. The reaction couples 4-chloroanisole and 4-(trifluoromethyl)phenylboronic acid using a Pd–NHC–DMS precatalyst. b , Best observed GC yield versus cumulative experiment count. c , GC yield after 20 experiments: 93.0% for RSI-Anything and 87.5% for Bayesian optimization. d , Illustrative flow-screen workflow for substrates 1c and 2b, with Pd(OAc) 2 , ligand, base, and solvent selection followed by LC–MS analysis. e , Mean best observed yield versus cumulative experiment count in the flow LC–MS screen. f , Yield after 40 experiments: 96.15% and 82.16% , respectively. Brackets indicate gains of 5.5 and 13.99 percentage points within the corresponding screen. Condition examples and feedback arrows illustrate the framework; curves and bars report the two separate screens.
Figure 7: An end-to-end application of RSI-Anything in immune science. A , evolution of scientific-agent workflows, construction of the immune world model, and model-guided analysis. B , action-conditioned transitions over structured cellular, tissue, and individual immune states, with readouts for interpretation, ranking, and hypothesis generation. Panels A and B adapted from Figure 1 of Cui et al. (2026a) .
Setting
State; action
World model; prediction
Policy / workflow; feedback-driven changes
Feedback; evaluation
Code repair
Program, tests, and feedback; candidate revision
JEPA-Anything-based W1 adapted from Qwen2.5-Coder-3B-Instruct Hui et al. (2024) with LoRA Hu et al. (2022) ; five-class probabilities
Fixed ReasonFlux-Coder-7B; fixed or feedback-adapted W1
Execution-test feedback; final test-suite success and online test usage
GUI interaction
Interface state and task; GUI action
GUI outcome predictor; consequences of candidate interface actions
Action policy and world model updated through interaction feedback
Task outcomes; completion and action-level diagnostics
Lab planning
Protocol context; candidate action sequence
JEPA-Anything-based protocol model; predicted consequences of a candidate sequence
4B planning policy; five consecutive versions in one improvement process
Development feedback; L1 next-action accuracy and F200 L2 Final Score
Recursive self-improvement (RSI) lets a system improve the model-building machinery from its own failures, so every later model inherits the gain. Yet RSI has been validated almost exclusively on coding and formal benchmarks such as science QA and mathematics. This format bound limits RSI to improvement within a machine-checkable slice, not general capability where questions are open and correctness is settled by argument, replication, or measurement. We argue RSI must next operate across real, diverse scientific, engineering, and meta-scientific domains, not where formal evaluation is merely tractable. To that end we present MetaRSI-v1, where improvement is the scheduled composition of three typed operators over one unified paradigm. Data-RSI amplifies existing competence and marks its boundary; Harness-RSI edits a five-slot scaffold without touching weights; Model-RSI internalizes capability into parameters through bounded training. Sharing one loop kernel and artifact vocabulary, they make data, scaffold, and model changes composable rather than exclusive. A two-axis optimizer jointly decides operator order and each operator's proposal policy, while a meta-level policy revises the schedule across terms. We validate MetaRSI-v1 under the field's standard evaluations, on code and closed-form science, with no external teacher: the target model plays every role in its own loop. MetaRSI-v1 reframes self-improvement from a single-surface edit to a composition across the full model-production pipeline, opening two paths: a model route internalizing capability through training, and a harness route leaving weights untouched and thus extending self-improvement to any model reachable through an interface, with Data-RSI redefined as the shared substrate feeding both. The framework further yields refutable laws on where loops exist, how operators compose, and what supervision buys.
Recursive self-improvement (RSI) enables AI systems to turn experience and feedback into persistent changes that improve both their capabilities and the process of future improvement. We first use the Headroom-Closed Index (HCI) to reveal the problems of existing LLMs, then introduce the RSI concept and its development roadmap: from improvement-execution autonomy, improvement-strategy autonomy, experience-acquisition autonomy, and environment-adaptation autonomy, to recursive meta-improvement. Next we examine RSI across scenarios (e.g., scientific discovery, embodied intelligence, software engineering), highlighting their distinct requirements and development speeds. Drawing on diverse industry practices and preliminary empirical evidence, we connect RSI research with practical systems and identify key challenges to achieving genuine RSI.
Yi Duan, Ying Liu, Zirui Tang +32
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Theseus Labs · Agent-Native Research Lab +6
Environments are the foundation of recursive self-improvement: they provide the problems agents work on and the feedback used to evaluate progress. Yet constructing challenging research environments with reliable evaluation still depends on domain experts, limiting their scale and disciplinary coverage. We introduce RSI-Forge, a multi-agent pipeline that turns published papers into executable environments for self-improvement. Three agents coordinate construction, reproduction, and review to produce tasks with automated evaluators; each paper's method is independently reimplemented to establish a baseline score. We present 210 environments across 18 fields, including 90 reviewed by independent human domain experts. Both experts and agent judges give high ratings to the potential for improving the provided starting solutions and the evaluators' ability to distinguish solution quality, whereas experts are more critical of shortcut resistance, faithfulness to the source paper, and whether a single idea can exhaust a task. To validate their use for repeated improvement, we evaluate four models over 3 successive attempts on 120 environments, with each attempt inheriting prior code and notes while model weights remain fixed. At least one model improves after the first attempt in 84% of environments. Models also outperform the reproduced paper methods in 68 of the 120 environments, demonstrating room for gains beyond these baselines. Transcript analysis identifies work beyond parameter tuning in 95% of these successful attempts. Analysis of the resulting trajectories shows that models scoring lower on these tasks explore less, more often accept gains smaller than the reported standard error, and rely more heavily on tuning to the development set. RSI-Forge provides a scalable approach to constructing research environments for training and evaluating self-improving agents.
Renxiong Wang, Darvin Yi, Abril Herrlein +16
Scale AI · University of California, Santa Cruz · University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill