Recursive self-improvement (RSI) in scientific research aims to improve agents' research capabilities through their own experimental experience. Scientific agent swarms can combine evidence and implementations from different research directions to guide their agents' subsequent experiments. However, poor experimental results can leave unclear whether to revise a hypothesis or its implementation, while overall program scores can hide components useful to other agents. To address these challenges, we introduce SwarmRSI, a framework that evolves scientific agent swarms for recursive self-improvement. We devise Feedback-Guided Swarm Mutation to refine hypotheses and their implementations using experimental feedback from other agents. We also propose Complementary Swarm Recombination to reuse retained hypotheses and complementary program components across agents, allowing partial results to support new research. Recursive Swarm Evolution integrates both mechanisms into a feedback loop, using new experimental evidence to guide subsequent research. Experiments on OpenProblems, NatureBench and MLE-Bench Lite demonstrate SwarmRSI's state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance. Further evaluations show that accumulated research experience improves performance on held-out tasks. Biologists also reproduce its programs for follow-up biological analyses.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Two limitations motivating SwarmRSI . In the top example, a poor result does not show whether the hypothesis or its implementation needs revision, and a promising hypothesis is abandoned. In the bottom example, a program without overall gains holds components useful to another agent’s later research. Dashed links mark open revisions and potential reuse.
Figure 2: Overview of SwarmRSI . Scientific agents use research states assembled from a shared graph. Feedback-Guided Swarm Mutation revises a hypothesis and implements the revision, or retains the hypothesis and repairs its program. Highlighted lines show local modifications. Complementary Swarm Recombination preserves a hypothesis while adapting another agent’s valid program base (rebase), or compares results across instances and adapts components from complementary programs into one new program (crossover). Blue and green code lines indicate crossover sources. The comparisons and code layouts are schematic. All candidates undergo execution and evaluation, and all attempts, whether successful, failed or without gain, update the graph and the next agent’s state st+1 .
Method
Backbone
Denoise
Label
Batch
SVG
Decomp
Visual
Avg ↑
Human Expert
Task-specific
28.0
85.0
71.0
66.0
49.0
44.0
57.2
Biomni
Claude 4 Sonnet
16.0
89.0
82.0
16.0
53.0
35.0
48.5
ChatGPT
GPT-5
3.0
81.0
83.0
60.0
74.0
38.0
56.5
AIDE †
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
27.4
70.6
78.0
72.8
46.1
39.8
55.8
TusoAI †
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
31.5
58.7
79.5
79.0
84.1
69.8
67.1
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
33.6
74.2
82.5
83.9
86.0
84.8
74.2
Table 1: Main results on the six OpenProblems tasks. Scores are normalized and scaled by 100. Avg is the six-task mean, recomputed from reported task scores for published references. † denotes our means over three seeds. Bold and underlined values indicate best and second best results, including ties at the reported precision.
Method
Backbone
Above Median ↑
Bronze
Silver
Gold ↑
Any-Medal ↑
MLEvolve
DeepSeek-V4-Pro †
81.8
9.1
27.3
36.4
72.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
–
–
–
–
80.3
Arbor
DeepSeek-V4-Pro †
86.4
4.5
31.8
40.9
77.3
GPT-5.5
95.5
0.0
9.1
77.3
86.4
ML-Master 2.0
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
84.9
13.6
31.8
30.3
75.8
Famou-Agent 2.0
Gemini 3 Pro Preview
93.9
12.1
18.2
50.0
80.3
Table 3: Main results on 22 MLE-Bench Lite tasks (%). † denotes our means over three seeds. Any-Medal combines exclusive medal rates before rounding, and – denotes unreported values. Bold and underlined values indicate best and second best Above Median, Gold, and Any-Medal rates, including ties.
Figure 3: SwarmRSI with two backbones. Full bars give Match-SOTA and Any-Medal rates (%), and solid portions give Surpass-SOTA and Gold rates.
Variant
Match
Surpass
Mean g
SwarmRSI
44.4
15.6
12.8
Feedback-Guided Swarm Mutation
w/o H-mutation
34.4
8.9
7.2
w/o P-mutation
31.1
6.7
5.4
Complementary Swarm Recombination
w/o recombination
37.8
7.8
7.6
Table 4: NatureBench ablations on all 90 tasks with DeepSeek-V4-Pro, averaged over three seeds and grouped by the mechanism each variant removes. Match and Surpass are Match-SOTA and Surpass-SOTA rates (%), and mean g is scaled by 100.
Figure 4: Search behaviour on NatureBench with DeepSeek-V4-Pro. (a) Failure recovery, the share of failed implementations whose later refinement yields a new best, over 90 tasks. (b) Nested shares of proposed hypotheses that are implemented (white), evaluated (light) and improved (hatched). (c, d) Best-so-far g of one recorded run per method on symmetric log axes.
Figure 5: Biological case studies. (a–c) UMAP of the reproduced SwarmRSI representation for 833 target enterocytes, coloured by source and by MHC-II/Cd74 and antimicrobial RNA scores (mean normalized log RNA). Green and pink denote helminth day-10 and Salmonella sources. (d–f) BALBc-1 spleen with manual annotations, SwarmRSI program partitions, and expert neighbourhood groups E1 (B/follicular-dendritic-cell-rich), E2 (myeloid/erythroid-rich) and E3 (T-cell-rich).
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Parameter
Value
Discount factor ρ
0.9
Exploration weight β
0.5
Request-pressure weight γ
0.25
Request-pressure saturation K
4
Eligible-wait threshold W
8
Tokens per cost unit T
1,000
Appendix
Table 5: Shared H/P-selection parameters and search limits across both backbones and all three benchmarks.
Figure 6: Performance against mean tokens per task for SwarmRSI and rerun baselines with DeepSeek-V4-Pro. OpenProblems reports normalized average scores scaled by 100, and NatureBench and MLE-Bench Lite report Match-SOTA and Any-Medal rates (%).
Variant
Δg
95% CI
w/o H-mutation
5.6
[1.2, 10.2]
w/o P-mutation
7.4
[3.0, 11.9]
w/o recombination
5.2
[2.5, 7.9]
w/o shared graph
4.7
[0.3, 9.3]
w/o H/P selection
8.2
[4.2, 12.4]
Appendix
Table 6: Drop in mean g (scaled by 100) from SwarmRSI for each ablation, with task-paired bootstrap 95% CIs.
Method
Seed
Denoise
Label
Batch
SVG
Decomp
Visual
Avg
SwarmRSI (DeepSeek)
1
34.1
74.6
83.1
84.7
85.6
85.2
74.55
2
33.5
73.5
82.8
83.8
86.6
84.6
74.13
3
33.3
74.4
81.6
83.1
85.8
84.7
73.82
SwarmRSI (Gemini)
1
40.2
81.5
79.0
86.6
82.7
85.5
75.92
2
40.2
80.7
78.1
88.8
84.0
86.1
76.32
3
40.3
80.0
79.4
88.1
83.6
87.5
76.48
Appendix
Table 7: Per-seed OpenProblems scores for all † entries in Table 2 . Scores are normalized and scaled by 100. Avg is the six-task mean, shown to two decimal places. DeepSeek and Gemini denote DeepSeek-V4-Pro and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, respectively.
Method
Denoise
Label
Batch
SVG
Decomp
Visual
Avg
SwarmRSI (DeepSeek)
1.03
1.46
1.97
1.99
1.31
0.80
0.91
SwarmRSI (Gemini)
0.14
1.86
1.65
2.79
1.65
2.55
0.72
AIDE (DeepSeek)
2.62
1.27
1.38
3.80
1.60
1.23
0.63
TusoAI (DeepSeek)
4.74
2.63
1.62
2.73
1.00
0.29
1.03
Appendix
Table 8: 95% CI half-widths for the OpenProblems means over three seeds in Table 2 , computed using the Student’s t -distribution from Table 7 . Intervals are the unrounded means ± these half-widths, on the score scale of Table 2 .
Task
Method
Scored/records
Best g
00917
SwarmRSI
18/18
0.1807
Arbor
3/4
-0.2007
AIDE
49/50
-0.4742
00639
SwarmRSI
19/21
0.0644
Arbor
2/3
0.0434
AIDE
8/28
0.0552
Appendix
Table 9: Selected runs with their scored evaluations, recorded events and best observed g .
Candidate
Recorded change
g
4
Retained hypothesis. Outputs unchanged from 3
−0.08323
8
Hypothesis mutation produces a new program base
−0.06388
9
Rebase: target predictor uses source training and checkpoint rules
−0.06186
11
Crossover: source 5 supplies a second instance predictor
−0.05573
15
Rebase: target predictor implemented without fallback
−0.05408
Appendix
Table 10: Recorded process on 00795. Candidate indices are zero-based. Each g comes from a valid evaluation of the resulting program.
Stage
Reuse hit
Other hit
Reuse share
Early
32.0
25.8
40.5
Middle
18.2
16.8
41.1
Late
18.1
15.0
42.6
Appendix
Table 11: New-best rates (%) of reuse and update triggered by feedbacks (rebase, crossover and mutations triggered by feedback) and of other updates across search stages on NatureBench. Reuse share is the percentage of new-best candidates from these updates.
Variant
Match
Surpass
Mean g
Δg [95% CI]
Tokens
Cold start
41.7
33.3
12.01
–
12.17
Gen 1
58.3
41.7
16.15
4.14 [1.82, 6.49]
11.86
Gen 2
86.1
44.4
20.16
8.15 [5.67, 10.59]
11.52
Gen 3
86.1
58.3
21.89
9.88 [6.88, 13.06]
10.94
Appendix
Table 12: Search on 12 held-out NatureBench tasks with DeepSeek-V4-Pro, starting from an empty state (cold start) or from the state inherited after each generation, averaged over three seeds. Match and Surpass are Match-SOTA and Surpass-SOTA rates (%), mean g is scaled by 100, and Δg is the gain over cold start with a paired task-cluster bootstrap 95% CI from 10,000 resamples. Tokens are means per task in millions.
Source
Cells
MHC-II
Interferon
B1
59
0.354
0.115
B2
46
0.126
0.166
B3
98
0.375
0.136
B4
221
0.100
0.162
B5
75
0.377
0.391
B6
126
1.495
0.636
Appendix
Table 13: Measured enterocyte RNA program means by sequencing source. Scores average normalized log RNA across the four MHC-II or six interferon genes. B1–B4 are controls, B5/B6 helminth day 3, B7/B8 helminth day 10 and B9/B10 Salmonella.
Source
Program
Cells
RNA PCA
Reproduced output
Recorded output
B7
MHC-II
71
0.650
0.768
0.766
B8
MHC-II
57
0.396
0.685
0.686
B9
MHC-II
332
0.331
0.326
0.313
B10
MHC-II
373
0.356
0.351
0.347
B7
Antimicrobial
71
0.311
−0.045
−0.056
B8
Antimicrobial
57
0.689
0.593
0.612
Appendix
Table 14: Within-source local coherence after covariate adjustment. Entries are Spearman correlations between a cell’s residual RNA score and its ten neighbours’ mean residual score. Reproduced/recorded outputs are the expert reproduction and the representation saved from the original SwarmRSI run. Counts are cells per source.
Figure 7: Within-source expression coherence in enterocytes. Within each source, Spearman correlation compares cells’ measured RNA program scores with their ten nearest neighbours’ mean scores, excluding each focal cell. Neighbours are defined in RNA PCA (blue) or the reproduced SwarmRSI representation (pink), and the correlations are not adjusted for covariates.
Figure 8: Source means of individual measured genes in enterocytes. Hpoly.Day3/Day10 denote helminth day 3/day 10 sources. The antimicrobial set is primarily Reg3g/Reg3b. Zero Lcn2 denotes non-detection in this matrix. Values are mean normalized log RNA.
Recent work extends recursive self-improvement (RSI) to agent harnesses for long-horizon coding and terminal tasks, enabling agents to improve execution mechanisms from experience. However, generalizable harness RSI remains challenging. First, evolving harnesses on evaluation benchmarks or their subsets makes it difficult to distinguish reusable improvements from benchmark-specific adaptation. Second, single-trajectory updates can conflate systematic harness deficiencies with instance-specific reasoning and solution details, producing modifications that transfer poorly to unseen tasks. Third, localizing recurring behavioral deficiencies within monolithic harnesses is difficult, while whole-harness optimization can entangle unrelated mechanisms and complicate attribution and validation. We propose ModularRSI, a benchmark-disjoint, contrastive, and modular framework for generalizable harness evolution. ModularRSI contrasts successful and failed trajectories for the same task and aggregates evidence across tasks to identify recurring behavioral deficiencies. It decomposes the evolvable harness into five functional modules: Agent Loop, Tool Use, Observation Management, Context Management, and Task Completion Detection. Each module evolves independently within a restricted modification scope, followed by an integration stage that combines the evolved modules into a unified harness and resolves potential conflicts. To support benchmark-disjoint evolution, we curate 2,000 executable evolution tasks from external sources that are disjoint from downstream evaluation benchmarks. Experiments on TB2.0 and SWE-Bench Verified show consistent improvements on unseen in-domain and cross-domain tasks, with the evolved harness also transferring across different foundation models.
Siwei Wu, Jincheng Ren, Yizhi Li +12
University of Manchester · IQuest Research · M-A-P +3
Scaling recursive self-improvement requires additional computation to produce useful research progress in reaching persistent objectives. Intuitively, more researcher agents can explore more hypotheses, but early evaluation scores might misrepresent their promise, shared findings could lose their applicability conditions, and useful procedures could remain confined to completed investigations. In this paper, we present AReaL-RSI, a framework for organizing a persistent research team of agents without updating backbone LLM weights. We formulate the scaling problem in terms of evaluated outcomes and whole-system resource expenditure. Concretely, a leader agent selects task-appropriate research orientations and guides ongoing investigations; conditional memory sharing distinguishes unresolved problems from supported findings and enables recipient adaptation. During recursive evolution, after each campaign, evidence-based review revises researcher orientation, knowledge, and skills for later campaigns. Experiments compare AReaL-RSI with Codex-Goal on downstream harness optimization, GPU kernel optimization, and AI research tasks using two backbones. Under the reported resource allocations, AReaL-RSI improves Terminal Bench performance by 2.2 percentage points for each backbone and increases mean KernelBench speedup by 32.2-36.8%; further scalability comparisons favor the design of AReaL-RSI over native scaling: combining experience sharing with specialized researcher roles yields 1.9-27.5% lower kernel latency than independent exploration and 1.3-33.9% lower latency than sharing alone across all seven comparable task-backbone pairs.
We introduce and release ScienceBuddy, an interactive scientific research workspace that brings continually improving scientific agents into researchers' everyday workflows. ScienceBuddy supports researchers in carrying out scientific tasks while transforming their requests, feedback, and execution evidence into tasks and evaluation rubrics for continual learning. At its core is recursive-in-recursive self-improvement, a paradigm that couples harness evolution with model reinforcement learning: the inner recursion improves the harness with the model fixed, while the outer recursion trains the model under the improved harness. Harness evolution shapes training experience, and model learning creates new opportunities for harness adaptation. We present case studies of researcher interaction, harness refinement, and model learning, with the benchmark cases spanning four scientific task families. By releasing ScienceBuddy as a research product, we make this paradigm available to the scientific community and take a step toward discovery intelligence: scientific AI that advances through sustained collaboration with researchers and evolves alongside the research it supports. Website: http://science-buddy.io