Language Models Learn to Improve Language Models
Organizations: The Pennsylvania State University · UC Santa Cruz · Emory University · UC Santa Barbara ·
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to automate AI research, including language-model (LM) development, offering a potential path toward recursive self-improvement. However, turning experimental feedback into a learned ability to propose effective improvements across models faces two challenges. First, training such an ability with real feedback is expensive: reinforcement learning (RL) requires evaluating tens of thousands of proposals, each potentially requiring a full model-training run. Even at ten GPU-hours per run, reward collection alone would consume hundreds of thousands of GPU-hours, motivating a cheaper surrogate. Second, surrogate feedback can become unreliable as policy optimization favors overestimated proposals when the proposal distribution shifts. To address these challenges, we propose LM2LM, which trains LLMs with RL to generate effective LM improvement proposals. To provide scalable feedback, we use a research world model (RWM), a frozen LLM that predicts proposal gains from real experimental records provided in context, as the reward model for RL. To maintain feedback reliability, we periodically execute current-policy proposals ranked highly by the RWM and add their measured outcomes to its context. Across eight autoregressive and diffusion LM development environments, real-execution evaluations on held-out tasks show that LM2LM enables Qwen3.8-27B to outperform GPT-6-sol, even when GPT-6-sol is given 300 real experimental records in context, while requiring 33% lower data-generation cost. LM2LM also generalizes to a model family unseen during training.
Figures & tables
| Model | Experimental Gain | Pairwise Win Rate (%) | |||
| Avg@4 | Best@4 | Neg. (%) | Row vs. Base | LM2LM vs. Row | |
| AR families | |||||
| Base | – | ||||
| Base-ICL | |||||
| GPT-6-sol | |||||
| GPT-6-sol-ICL | |||||
| Model | Gain | Win Rate (%) | ||
| Avg@4 | Best@4 | Row vs. Base | LM2LM vs. Row | |
| Base | – | |||
| Base-ICL | ||||
| GPT-6-sol | ||||
| GPT-6-sol-ICL | ||||
| LM2LM | – | |||
Appendix figures & tables19 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Held-out | Records | ||||
| Family | Training tasks | Held-out tasks (states) | states | Pool | |
| AR families | |||||
| OLMo-3 | 100m-4c , 100m-8c , 190m-1c , 190m-2c , 370m-1c , 370m-2c , 760m-1c | 100m-1c (17), 100m-2c (8), 190m-4c (4) | 29 | 16 | 47 |
| Qwen3 | q06b-1b , q06b-2b , q17b-1b , q17b-2b , q152m-8b , q267m-1b , q267m-2b | q152m-2b (8), q267m-4b (4) | 12 | 25 | 62 |
| NanoChat | d8-8k-0p82b , d8-8k-3p28b , d12-8k-8p59b , d16-8k-4p58b , d20-8k-8p49b | d12-8k-2p15b (17) | 17 | 15 | 79 |
| Marin | 153m-2p9b , 153m-8b , 267m-2p9b , 267m-8b , 486m-2p9b | 486m-8b (2) | 2 | 11 | 30 |
| Family | Task | Parameters | Budget | ||
| OLMo-3 | 100m-1c | 153M | 2.0B tokens | 1.3750 | 0.0011 |
| OLMo-3 | 100m-2c | 153M | 4.0B tokens | 1.2939 | 0.0056 |
| OLMo-3 | 190m-4c | 267M | 15.2B tokens | 1.1275 | 0.0017 |
| Qwen3 | q152m-2b | 153M | 2.0B tokens | 1.3641 | 0.0025 |
| Qwen3 | q267m-4b | 267M | 4.0B tokens | 1.1683 | 0.0042 |
| NanoChat | d12-8k-2p15b | 286M | 2.15B tokens | 0.8135 | 0.0007 |
| Direction | Example changes | AR | Diffusion |
| Attention reach | RoPE fraction and base, attention windows, token-mixer layout | 42 | – |
| Decay shape | learning-rate decay tail, warmup, weight averaging, | 34 | – |
| Update geometry | Muon iterations and scaling, , weight decay, gradient clipping | 22 | 9 |
| Capacity allocation | per-layer FFN widths, attention–FFN parameter split | 29 | – |
| KV / state budget | placement and slots of context-memory layers, KV heads | 23 | – |
| Loss geometry | confidence-weighted loss, label smoothing, position-scheduled loss | 23 | – |
| Model | Experimental Gain | Pairwise Win Rate | ||
| Avg@4 | Best@4 | Row vs. Base | LM2LM vs. Row | |
| OLMo-3 | ||||
| Base (Qwen3.8-27B) | – | |||
| Base-ICL | ||||
| GPT-6-sol | ||||
| GPT-6-sol-ICL | ||||
| Model | Experimental Gain | Pairwise Win Rate | ||
| Avg@4 | Best@4 | Row vs. Base | LM2LM vs. Row | |
| E2D2 | ||||
| Base (Qwen3.8-27B) | – | |||
| Base-ICL | ||||
| GPT-6-sol | ||||
| GPT-6-sol-ICL | ||||
| AR | Diffusion | |||||||
| Model | Avg@4 | Best@4 | (%) | Rel. (%) | Avg@4 | Best@4 | (%) | Rel. (%) |
| Base | ||||||||
| Base-ICL | ||||||||
| GPT-6-sol | ||||||||
| GPT-6-sol-ICL | ||||||||
| SFT | ||||||||
| Data generation | Proposer training | Total | |||
| Method | C_{\}k) | GPU-h | Cost ($k) | ($k) | |
| ICL ( – ) | – | – | |||
| SFT | |||||
| RFT-Real | |||||
| LM2LM | |||||
| Data-generation cost | Gain | ||||||||
| Method | Real runs | GPU-h | Tokens (M) | C_{\}$ | (h) | (h) | Avg@4 | Best@4 | |
| Base-ICL | |||||||||
| Base model | Qwen3.8-27B |
| Adaptation | LoRA, rank 16, , no dropout |
| LoRA targets | all linear layers of attention and MLP blocks |
| Training pairs (AR / diffusion) | SFT 218 / 82; RFT-Real 76 / 38 |
| Loss | token-level NLL on proposal tokens only |
| Optimizer | AdamW, , no weight decay |
| Learning rate | , 3% linear warmup, cosine decay to 10% |
Language Model Self-Improvement
Language model self-improvement studies how models use their own outputs, feedback, and experience to improve with less external supervision.
See all 170 papers