Agentic visual generation produces experience that can improve the native understanding (agent) and generation roles of a unified multimodal backbone, but task success alone does not determine which role should learn. Generator updates can also make the agent's action supervision stale. We introduce RSIgen, a task-centric reciprocal self-improvement framework linking learning allocation, supervision refresh, and recursive curriculum construction. Dynamic Responsibility Routing (DRR) uses matched interventions on evidence, inputs, and supported actions to select learning recipients and construct compatible training targets. After generator learning, RSIgen re-evaluates the relative utility of tested actions with branch inputs held fixed to refresh agent supervision; the retained roles then construct the next curriculum. Across BAGEL, Qwen-Image, and Wan-Image-7B, RSIgen improves AgentGen-Bench Full Overall9 by 3.2--3.3 points over a three-cycle SearchGen adaptation with action costs. Wan controls support allocation gains at matched role-level training exposure, refresh gains at a matched adaptation budget, and benefits from updated curriculum sources while recipients continue learning. In blind evaluation on 200 real-user requests, pooled tie-adjusted preference scores against the same baseline reach 70.0% for task completion and 64.9% for visual quality.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Reciprocal learning in agentic visual generation. (a) Agent orchestration and generator realization are roles within a unified multimodal model (UMM); PE denotes prompt enhancement. (b) Generator learning changes action utility. (c) Agent learning changes inputs and evidence for later curricula. Images and quality levels are illustrative.
Figure 2: RSIgen’s learning procedure. DRR compiles matched probes into typed curricula. Generator learning precedes re-probing and agent learning; retained roles construct the next curriculum. Pool, admission, and sealed evaluation data have separate roles. UMM denotes the unified model’s understanding/orchestration and generation roles. Evaluator feedback and capability memory support training.
Figure 3: Schematic routing decisions. (a) Holding evidence and generator fixed, a corrected layout repairs a chronology error and yields an agent-construction candidate. (b) A module mismatch under checked input yields a generator-realization candidate when a compatible target is available. (c) Learning, externalization, and deferral depend on the dependency’s properties and branch outcomes.
Probe pattern
Recipient/subtype
Compiled training object
Oracle repairs inadequate retrieval
Agent: acquisition
Valid query and evidence-selection trajectory
Corrected input repairs the output
Agent: construction
Executed corrected prompt or condition
Search repairs a stable-knowledge failure
Generator: internalization
Evidence-free prompt and validated assisted image
Failure persists with sufficient valid input
Generator: realization
Compatible rendering, reference, or edit pair
Previously mastered capability regresses
Original recipient/replay
Validated prior target
Volatile dependency or unresolved diagnosis
Externalize or no-update
Retained access or further probes
Table 1: From probe outcomes to typed curricula. Each route pairs validated inputs with a recipient-compatible target. Oracle supports diagnosis; agent targets use executed trajectories.
Checklist
Visual Ref.
Image Quality
Overall9
Model
NS
SI
NS
SI
NS
SI
NS
SI
Full
Commercial Models
GPT-Image-2
84.8
74.4
70.9
70.4
73.4
77.4
78.9
75.5
76.0
Grok-Imagine-2.0-Low
83.0
73.1
68.7
68.3
72.5
76.9
76.9
74.9
75.2
Qwen-Image-3-Max
79.1
65.8
64.0
59.6
70.3
71.1
73.7
67.6
68.4
Nano Banana Pro
78.4
60.7
63.0
55.4
70.7
68.1
73.3
63.6
65.0
Table 2: AgentGen-Bench overview (0–100). NS/SI: NoSearch/Search-Intensive; Full: Full-slice Overall9. Colors mark best and second-best within each group. Public baseline scores follow the benchmark release; matched training comparisons appear in Table 3 .
BAGEL
Qwen-Image
Wan-Image-7B
Method
NS
SI
Full
NS
SI
Full
NS
SI
Full
Direct
–
–
–
–
–
–
62.3
27.4
32.1
Prompt enhancement
–
–
–
–
–
–
64.1
31.2
35.6
Agentic initialization
54.2
25.4
29.3
70.6
35.3
40.0
64.3
33.4
37.5
A-only / Gen-Searcher adapt.
56.3
29.4
33.0
71.2
39.4
43.6
65.2
36.3
40.2
SearchGen-3 + costs
58.2
33.4
36.7
72.3
43.2
47.1
66.2
40.8
44.2
Table 3: Matched within-backbone comparisons on AgentGen-Bench. Trained methods share initialization and resource allowances within each backbone; scores aggregate multiple training seeds. NS/SI denote NoSearch/Search-Intensive, and Full is the global Overall9 mean. Direct and prompt enhancement are untrained Wan references; dashes indicate results not reported in this comparison.
Model
Ch
Ru
Pr
IQ
Tx
Nat
Co
Ph
VR
A. NoSearch (NS)
BAGEL
51.5
49.2
37.7
56.2
16.1
48.8
62.8
58.5
32.1
BAGEL + RSIgen
63.4
62.1
58.3
61.4
50.6
60.2
68.4
73.2
45.6
Qwen-Image
74.9
72.0
65.5
69.2
61.1
61.7
77.0
78.6
60.1
Qwen-Image + RSIgen
77.2
76.1
72.4
70.7
68.4
69.2
80.1
81.3
63.4
Wan-Image-7B
65.3
63.2
57.4
65.1
54.3
57.2
73.4
75.1
49.3
Table 4: Component scores for the three backbones and their RSIgen variants. Ch: Checklist; Ru: Rubric; Pr: Prompt Faithfulness; IQ: Image Quality; Tx: Text Rendering; Nat: AI Naturalness; Co: Composition; Ph: Physical Plausibility; VR: Visual Reference. Overall9 appears in Table 2 .
Task completion
Visual quality
Backbone
W / T / L
Pref.
W / T / L
Pref.
BAGEL
312 / 198 / 90
68.5%
264 / 234 / 102
63.5%
Qwen-Image
324 / 194 / 82
70.2%
276 / 228 / 96
65.0%
Wan-Image-7B
336 / 185 / 79
71.4%
288 / 217 / 95
66.1%
Overall
972 / 577 / 251
70.0%
828 / 679 / 293
64.9%
Table 5: Blind human evaluation against SearchGen-3 + costs on the same 200 real-user requests. Each backbone has 600 judgments per dimension (three ratings per pair); Overall pools 1,800 judgments on those same requests. W/T/L is from RSIgen’s perspective; preference is 100(W+0.5T)/(W+T+L) .
Variant
Full ↑
S
G/E
Full RSIgen
47.5
1.16
1.30
A-only updates
40.2
1.59
1.45
G-only updates
41.7
1.76
1.51
Uniform reciprocal
43.8
1.41
1.42
Failure-locus-only routing
44.1
1.51
1.44
No post-G re-probe
45.0
1.53
1.39
Table 6: Wan ablations on AgentGen-Bench. Full measures quality; S and G/E count inference searches and generations/edits per request.
Strategy
Full ↑
Δ Full
Searches ↓
Gen./edits ↓
Compatible-uniform
46.0
0.0
1.29
1.37
Failure-locus
46.3
+0.3
1.27
1.36
DRR
47.4
+1.4
1.21
1.32
Table 7: Wan allocation comparison with matched role-level training exposure. Δ is relative to compatible-uniform.
Backbone
Method
Full
Searches
Generations/edits
BAGEL
SearchGen-3 + costs
36.7
1.21
1.32
BAGEL
RSIgen
39.9
1.18
1.31
Qwen-Image
SearchGen-3 + costs
47.1
1.21
1.31
Qwen-Image
RSIgen
50.3
1.13
1.28
Wan-Image-7B
SearchGen-3 + costs
44.2
1.26
1.33
Wan-Image-7B
RSIgen
47.5
1.16
1.30
Table 8: Inference-call averages for SearchGen-3 + costs and RSIgen. Values are mean search and generation/edit calls per request.
A. Action changes after generator updates
Decision
Evaluated per stage
Preference shift (%)
Stale labels (%)
Pre-generation
200
22.2 [18.1, 26.5]
17.0 [13.4, 20.9]
Post-generation
200
20.8 [16.9, 25.1]
15.7 [12.3, 19.3]
Table 9: Wan action refresh on Test-mini. A: branch changes over 200 requests and 200 canonical post-states per stage, with 95% intervals in brackets. B: matched continuation with the updated generator; the final column gives refresh-minus-stale 95% intervals. All estimates average three stages. Intervals use 10,000 paired request-cluster bootstrap replicates.
Phase
Transition
Count
Share (%)
Pre
Search → Direct
69
51.9
Pre
Direct → Search
15
11.3
Pre
SearchModeSwitch
24
18.0
Pre
Search → PromptEnhance
13
9.8
Pre
PromptEnhance → Search
12
9.0
Post
Regenerate → LocalEdit
49
39.2
Table 10: Grouped action transitions pooled across stages. Shares divide by 133 pre-generation or 125 post-generation shifts. SearchModeSwitch includes switches involving HybridSearch; Repair groups admissible repair actions.
Table 14
Agent curricula
Generator curricula
Source
Valid
New valid
Refreshed
Valid
New valid
Refreshed
Current
5,580
2,660
1,950
7,480
4,140
970
Freeze-A
5,280
2,560
1,660
7,060
3,820
790
Freeze-G
4,690
2,270
400
6,960
3,680
680
Freeze-both
4,430
2,120
0
6,740
3,540
570
Table 13: Wan curriculum construction and supervision changes across the four source controls. Counts sum target entries across three attempts. Valid and new-valid counts describe construction; refreshed counts describe updated targets actually used for training.
Figure 4: Wan role performance and curriculum validity across retained states. Evaluation uses 200 requests and four image seeds per request/state; agent evaluation fixes G0 . Role scores and curriculum units are defined in Section 5.6 .
Figure 5: Current-source training curricula across three Wan update attempts. Each bar counts selected items by recipient subtype, with totals of 1,800 agent and 2,200 generator items per attempt. Counts are selected training records, including replay.
Figure 6: Five-request comparison with complete prompts at left and BAGEL, Qwen-Image, Wan-Image, SearchGen, and RSIgen outputs in columns. Table 3 reports aggregate comparisons.
Figure 7: Additional RSIgen visual examples, including object depiction, sequential character scenes, product presentation, and stylized character designs.
An LLM agent's capability is largely magnified by its harness, namely the prompts, control flow, tooling, memory, and context management surrounding the frozen backbone model. Recent methods increasingly automate this process by iteratively proposing and selecting component-wise edits of an agent harness, practically establishing a form of recursive self-improvement (RSI) at the agent-system level. However, such recursive evolution may overfit by memorizing the training tasks, showing large in-distribution gains that shrink or even vanish on out-of-distribution benchmarks. We introduce Regularized Recursive Self-Improvement of Agent Harnesses (RRSI), which incorporates the principles of regularizations into harness self-improvement by constraining the evolution candidate proposal and selection. The proposer operates with a temporally annealed budget, limiting how many edits a candidate can bundle, and it encourages unexplored trajectories based on evolution history. The selector is equipped with a critic and a pruner: the critic screens benchmark-specific proposals, while the pruner, removes changes that are too small, too expensive, or no longer useful. Together these constraints favor reusable agent mechanisms over benchmark-specific ones or even noises. Across eight benchmarks spanning coding, agentic workspace and engineering design tasks, RRSI gains up to 6.0 points on the split it evolves against and up to 4.3 points on the five out-of-distribution benchmarks, while producing a harness that runs on 30% fewer policy tokens than the unregularized evolution. Code is available at https://github.com/google-research/rrsi and project page is https://regularized-rsi.com/.
Peng Xia, Rujun Han, Zifeng Wang +11
Google Cloud AI Research · UNC-Chapel Hill · Stanford University +1
Recursive self-improvement (RSI) of a model on non-verifiable tasks, such as open-ended research, faces a supervision bottleneck when its outputs exceed what even human experts can reliably assess, leaving the model itself (optimizee) as the best available optimizer and evaluator. However, a single model instance struggles to critique and improve its own complex reasoning under this homogeneous loop. To address this, we propose Multi-Agent Self-Supervision (MASS), an RSI method that alternates between evolutionary workflow optimization and supervised fine-tuning on self-generated trajectories. Guided by early findings that multi-agent topologies excel at complex reasoning, MASS prompts a single base model to iteratively propose, execute, and self-evaluate multi-agent workflows. Through an evolutionary search constrained by structural guardrails, the model optimizes these computational-graph-like orchestrations, discovering the most effective distinct roles and information routing for a given task. Over two MASS cycles with Qwen3.6-27B, the model achieves 1.2-1.6x higher performance per output tokens on four open-ended public benchmarks. Because the improved model subsequently acts as a better optimizer and evaluator, this alternating framework enables a continuous, recursive bootstrapping of the model's capabilities. Moreover, multi-agent traces are also more training-efficient: a student trained on them outperforms a single-agent student trained on 1.4x more training tokens. These findings suggest that jointly learning orchestration and bounded subagent execution from multi-agent trajectories can provide an effective signal for RSI.
Visual content generation has advanced from single-image to multi-image workflows, yet existing agents remain largely plan-driven and lack systematic reflection mechanisms to correct mid-trajectory visual errors. To address this limitation, we propose VisionCreator-R1, a native visual generation agent with explicit reflection, together with a Reflection-Plan Co-Optimization (RPCO) training methodology. Through extensive experiments and trajectory-level analysis, we uncover reflection-plan optimization asymmetry in reinforcement learning (RL): planning can be reliably optimized via plan rewards, while reflection learning is hindered by noisy credit assignment. Guided by this insight, our RPCO first trains on the self-constructed VCR-SFT dataset with reflection-strong single-image trajectories and planning-strong multi-image trajectories, then co-optimization on VCR-RL dataset via RL. This yields our unified VisionCreator-R1 agent, which consistently outperforms Gemini2.5Pro on existing benchmarks and our VCR-bench covering single-image and multi-image tasks.
Jinxiang Lai, Wenzhe Zhao, Zexin Lu +7
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · Tencent Hunyuan