MMLA-RSI: Recursive Self-Improvement through RTT and RTMA
Organizations: MMLA-org · Communication University of China (CUC), No. 1 Dingfuzhuang East Street, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100024, China
Abstract
An agent can improve its behavior within an unresolved problem by changing how it acts and which experience it retains. We propose MMLA-RSI, a recursive self-improvement scheme with two implementations in Memory-Mediated Learning Architecture: Reasoning-Time Training (RTT) changes the policy state , while Reasoning-Time Memory Adaptation (RTMA) changes authoritative memory . Each route also makes its adaptation method an object of improvement. A current numerical updater trains the policy proposing its successor; a current memory manager chooses the records available to the process proposing its successor. An independently admitted successor takes over the same role in the next generation. We give bounded executable rule languages, shared task/proposal interfaces, and one algorithm for either route or their composition. The RTT instance changes scalar schedules in a clipped-momentum update. The RTMA instance chooses NULL or a complete-row write with possible eviction. A fixed interpreter, trusted committer, and independent evaluator bound what can change. State versions, read closures, and conditional properties describe causal execution, accepted transitions, and finite work. Existing numerical-component studies motivate the construction. In four-candidate program selection, retaining LARC feedback updates reduces expected error by 24.65 and 36.65 percentage points for two trained initializations. In chronological continuous-integration replay, feedback binding is positive while retention increases loss. Completed SQL studies improve substantially over an unadapted substrate but do not establish the required additional online benefit. These results characterize their declared components. The two recursive routes and their joint realization are specified here; their beneficial recursive chains and discovery efficiency remain to be evaluated.
Figures & tables
| Object | Operation and lifetime | Restoration or transition |
|---|---|---|
| Bound pretrained substrate and shared offline adaptation | Verify original identity; never recreate by retraining. | |
| Slow initialization of the numerical carrier | Copied at problem start; bound for each comparison. | |
| Private state changed by feedback in the current problem | Reset to the problem’s bound . | |
| Numerical updater and memory-management rule | The selected domain changes only by admitted version replacement. | |
| Bounded authoritative records with verified complete-row commits | Starts from bound ; independently retained, reset, or held fixed. | |
| Every additional dependency of a future action | Restored with the intervention’s declared closure. |
| Witness | Required evidence |
|---|---|
| W1 | The input and task identity remain the same and the problem is unresolved. |
| W2 | Feedback is bound to a completed attempt and has arrived before the update. |
| W3 | A genuine learning-state change is committed, with a version and read closure. |
| W4 | The update is causal, belongs to the current epoch, and does not use future information. |
| W5 | The commit precedes a fresh proposal and both occur before resolution. |
| W6 | The next proposal actually loads the committed state version. |
| Component study | Main observation | Strong comparison or boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Four-program selection | Retention reduces expected error by 24.65 and 36.65 points for static and adapted initializations. | Real-keep error 29.302% / 24.611%; support-loss selection 0.78125%. |
| Chronological CI replay | while : real binding helps relative to sham, retention harms. | Half-Brier loss rises from 0.12744 to 0.18081; HEDGE4 reaches 0.10243. |
| SParC interaction | Whole-interaction success 18.42% versus frozen six-proposal 20.18%; paired gain points. | 97.5% interval ; strict prefix-read task gains are zero. |
| CoSQL correction transfer | Final-query success 46.965% versus frozen 47.944%; paired gain points. | 97.5% interval ; neither arm passes its online requirements. |
| Route | Main changed object | Dependence carried into later improvement |
|---|---|---|
| aTTT | Episode-specific numerical adapter | Updated policy changes later trajectory text under a prescribed update rule. |
| RRSI | Agent harness around a frozen model | Successor harness produces the next round’s evidence and evolution history. |
| MemEvolve | Programmable memory architecture | Architecture-dependent execution traces inform selection, diagnosis, and redesign of memory modules. |
| OPSD | Student policy | Student sampling changes; the experimental teacher remains fixed. |
| DCE+SRCL | Student and privileged teacher checkpoints | Updated ability changes the next round’s supervision. |
| STOP / DGM | Improver program / self-modifying agent | Successor can act in producing a later descendant. |
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Initialization | Real keep | Real reset | Sham keep | Sham reset |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Static objective | 29.302 | 53.948 | 57.666 | 53.948 |
| Adapted objective | 24.611 | 61.259 | 60.379 | 61.259 |
| Contrast | Mean (percentage points) | 99% group interval |
|---|---|---|
| Static retention | 24.65 | [19.39, 29.26] |
| Static binding | 28.36 | [21.85, 34.93] |
| Adapted retention | 36.65 | [31.65, 41.20] |
| Adapted binding | 35.77 | [30.33, 41.01] |
| Static error adapted error, real keep | 4.69 | [1.19, 8.88] |
| Method, with recorded memory condition | Mean half-Brier loss |
|---|---|
| Shared real/sham reset read, real | 0.12744 |
| Real feedback, keep , real | 0.18081 |
| Permuted feedback, keep , real | 0.33050 |
| HEDGE4 | 0.10243 |
| Real retention | |
| Feedback binding |
| Confirmation method | Final-query success (%) |
|---|---|
| Original frozen substrate, six proposals | 7.295 |
| Development-selected copy-edit rule | 1.824 |
| Retrieval rule | 5.348 |
| Search rule | 0.961 |
| Static task model, six frozen proposals | 47.944 |
| Static task model, real-feedback procedure | 48.230 |
| Arm and controlled effect | Mean (percentage points) | 95% database interval |
|---|---|---|
| Static retention | 0.775 | |
| Static binding | 0.387 | |
| Adapted retention | 0.580 | |
| Adapted binding | 0.423 |
| Study | Accounting scope | Recorded quantity | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program selection | Full entry, including production preflight | Wall seconds | 1,634.50 |
| Contract charge, including data work | Seconds | 1,640.27 | |
| Physical / effective token positions | Millions | 49.026 / 19.521 | |
| CI | Qualification, task fit, and repeated evaluation | Native wall hours | 3.675 |
| SQL interaction R5 | This successful R5 invocation | GPU residency upper hours | 4.819 |
| Budgeted process-tree CPU | CPU hours | 5.641 |
Self-Improving Agents
Self-improving agents use experience and feedback to update their models, memories, skills, or workflows for better future task performance.
See all 167 papers