Generalized Agent Iteration: One Formal Framework for Iterative Policy Improvement and Recursive Self-Improvement
Generalized Agent Iteration formally unifies iterative policy improvement and recursive self-improvement, defining axes that distinguish anchored, goal-drifting, and self-referential agents.
The paper proposes Generalized Agent Iteration (GAI), a formal framework that models learning as a cycle of agent evaluation and agent improvement, defining the agent as a configuration of modifiable components. Two dials—whether the improving mechanism is part of the agent and whether the evaluation standard is grounded outside it—separate generalized policy iteration (GPI) from recursive self-improvement (RSI) and classify systems as anchored, goal drift, or fully self-referential. The framework places existing systems on shared axes and makes defects of recursive self-improvement statable one condition at a time.
- GAI unifies GPI and RSI as cases of one learning paradigm
- Two dials separate improvement mechanism location and evaluation grounding
- Polarity classes: anchored, goal drift, fully self-referential
- Enables comparability of existing systems and principled RSI analysis
Full article249 words · extracted from huggingface.co · click to collapse
When we speak of recursive self-improvement (RSI), are we speaking of a phenomenon, a mechanism, or a prospect? Towards autonomous and evolving intelligence, RSI is being claimed at many scales, while no single framework that formally describes these emerging instances exists. Its counterpart in the classical realm, iterative policy improvement, is characterized by generalized policy iteration (GPI), a framework of broad applicability with well-understood theoretical properties, but only where the update principle and the evaluation base lie outside the agent. In this paper, we propose Generalized Agent Iteration (GAI), a formal framework that describes iterative policy improvement and RSI as two cases of a single learning paradigm. GAI defines the agent as a configuration of modifiable components within a system and models the learning process as a cycle of agent evaluation and agent improvement. Two pivotal dials then distinguish the instances: whether the improving mechanism is part of the agent and whether the standard it is measured against is grounded outside it. The former dial delineates the boundary between GPI and RSI, and the latter determines a system's polarity as anchored, goal drift, or fully self-referential. Moreover, we use these coordinates to place existing systems on the same two axes and make the defects of recursive self-improvement statable one condition at a time. We see this paper as a first step toward exploring a formal characterization of RSI that rests on the classical account, makes existing systems comparable, and provides a principled basis for analyzing and designing new ones.
Text extracted automatically; images, tables and formatting may be missing. Original: https://huggingface.co/papers/2609.13406