Sizhe Chen, Sanjay Kariyappa, Liwei Jiang, Chong Xiang, Jihye Choi, Chaowei Xiao, G. Edward Suh
The recent incident in which OpenAI agents autonomously compromised Hugging Face's infrastructure illustrates the importance of instruction hierarchy (IH): an LLM should follow lower-priority instructions, such as user requests, only when they do not conflict with higher-priority instructions, such as system policies. IH can be effectively improved by fine-tuning LLMs on simulated examples of instruction conflicts, whose diversity is key to teaching LLMs to properly handle conflicts at test time. However, our decomposition of a task into goals and constraints reveals a conflict type -- goal-goal conflicts -- that is absent from existing IH training sets from OpenAI and NVIDIA. We show the importance of this conflict type: fine-tuning Qwen3.5-9B and Gemma4-12B-it on examples of this conflict type significantly improves IH on a wide range of real-world tasks unseen in training; adding these examples to existing IH training sets for fine-tuning also gives better IH adherence. The IH gains come with trivial mean utility changes on no-conflict tasks across eight benchmarks. Our work advocates including this new conflict type in IH training, even if these examples do not reflect typical LLM use.
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.