ParetoRSI-Gym: Can AI Agents Improve Language Models Across Multiple Domains?

Can AI agents autonomously train useful language models and improve them using feedback from users? We introduce RSI Arena, a two-stage study of autonomous post-training as a step toward recursive self-improvement. Ten frontier models act as training agents, each starting from NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B-A3B Base. During a six-day first stage, each agent has 1,000 GPU-hours and $300 in API credit on a shared 64-GPU cluster, independently selecting data, implementing training procedures, and choosing checkpoints. We evaluate their models on 20 benchmarks and through blind human evaluations. All ten agents produce working assistants, with the strongest model, trained by GPT-6 Astra, closing a median of 76% of the base-to-Instruct gap across 12 capability benchmarks. Its human-preference rating is also close to NVIDIA Instruct after statistical adjustment for answer length and formatting. In Stage 2, each agent receives the comparison records and votes involving its Stage 1 model and is given three additional days for further training. Using NVIDIA Instruct as a common reference across the two evaluation rounds, we observe an improvement from Stage 1 to Stage 2 in the style-adjusted relative rating of eight of the ten models. We show that benchmark gains were modest, with no clear link to preference gains, while some agents encouraged longer responses and one model showed increased harmful compliance on StrongREJECT. RSI Arena provides an auditable setting for studying how human feedback can guide autonomous model development. It takes a step toward recursive self-improvement with human feedback (RSIHF), in which people help define what improvement means for the AI systems they use.

Recursive self-improvement (RSI) of agent harnesses has emerged as an effective approach to enhancing the capabilities of large language model (LLM) agents. By searching the harness space for a specific LLM on a given dataset, RSI can discover a harness tailored to the capabilities and behavioral characteristics of that model. However, such optimization often creates a strong coupling between the learned harness and its target LLM, limiting generalization across models and requiring substantial computational resources to adapt to new LLMs. Moreover, existing RSI methods typically optimize a harness using feedback from a single model and evaluate its generalization to other models only after training. This paradigm treats model differences primarily as a criterion for evaluating generalization rather than as valuable evidence for optimization. In this paper, we introduce a new perspective that treats models as data and places the harness at the center of optimization. Building on this perspective, we propose MaD-RSI, a framework that directly optimizes a shared harness across multiple heterogeneous LLMs by incorporating their diverse failure trajectories into the training process. Rather than assessing model differences only after optimization, MaD-RSI leverages these differences as training evidence to guide the self-improvement of a shared harness. Furthermore, we introduce a new evaluation framework with two complementary metrics designed to assess the effectiveness of harness optimization across models. Experiments across multiple datasets and LLMs demonstrate that MaD-RSI improves generalization over existing approaches while reducing training costs.

Large language model (LLM) agents can now post-train an LLM end-to-end, raising the prospect of recursive self-improvement (RSI). Yet this progress is measured by aggregate benchmark scores, which cannot tell whether an agent executes a fixed plan well or strategically revises the plan when it fails. We separate these two capabilities: execution-level capability, iterating within an established training strategy, and strategy-level capability, revising that strategy as experimental evidence accumulates. Analyzing 1,338 post-training trajectories of frontier agents, we find that agents reliably execute post-training but lock into a default strategy, which follows the agent rather than the task, and only 2.1% of transitions between adjacent training runs ever change strategy. We then test whether the agent lacks experience, reasoning, or the decision to switch. (1) Experience improves execution but not the strategy. (2) Additional reasoning compute yields front-loaded gains on easier tasks but refines, rather than revises, the committed strategy. (3) Human review before training changes which strategy the agent locks into, not whether it locks in, whereas a single mid-run instruction outperforms the agent's own continuation by up to 17.44 points under the same budget. In conclusion, what the agent lacks is the decision to reopen a committed strategy and try another one. Realizing RSI therefore calls for interaction protocols and training signals that make strategy revision an explicit, rewarded decision.