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.
Fengqing Jiang Apple and University of Washington, Yichen Feng University of Washington, Yuetai Li, Luyao Niu University of Washington, Basel Alomair University of Washington, Radha Poovendran University of Washington, Seattle
The convergence of LLM-powered research assistants and AI-based peer review systems creates a critical vulnerability: fully automated publication loops where AI-generated research is evaluated by AI reviewers without human oversight. We investigate this through BadScientist, a framework that evaluates whether fabrication-oriented paper generation agents can deceive multi-model LLM review systems. Our generator employs presentation-manipulation strategies requiring no real experiments. We develop a rigorous evaluation framework with formal error guarantees (concentration bounds and calibration analysis), calibrated on real data. Our results reveal systematic vulnerabilities: fabricated papers achieve acceptance rates up to 82%. Critically, we identify concern-acceptance conflict—reviewers frequently flag integrity issues yet assign acceptance-level scores. Our mitigation strategies show only marginal improvements, with detection accuracy barely exceeding random chance. Despite provably sound aggregation mathematics, integrity checking systematically fails, exposing fundamental limitations in current AI-driven review systems and underscoring the urgent need for defense-in-depth safeguards in scientific publishing.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表
Yuetai Li, Zhangchen Xu, Fengqing Jiang Apple and University of Washington, Bhaskar Ramasubramanian Western Washington University, Luyao Niu University of Washington, Bill Yuchen Lin xAI and University of Washington, Xiang Yue Carnegie Mellon University, Radha Poovendran University of Washington, Seattle
Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) is intended to improve their reasoning capabilities, yet we uncover a counterintuitive effect: models often forget how to solve problems they previously answered correctly during training. We term this phenomenon Temporal Forgetting and show that it is widespread across model sizes, fine-tuning methods (both Reinforcement Learning and Supervised Fine-Tuning), and multiple reasoning benchmarks. Our analysis reveals on average more than 20% of final errors were once solved correctly at an earlier checkpoint. Inspired by the phenomenon of Temporal Forgetting, we proposed Temporal Sampling, a simple decoding strategy that draws outputs from multiple checkpoints along the training trajectory. This approach recovers forgotten solutions and leads to significant improvements in reasoning performance than final-ckpt-sampling only, gains from 4 to 19 points in Pass@k and consistent gains for majority-voting and Best-of-N across several benchmarks. Temporal sampling also outperforms strong baselines such as model merging. By leveraging the temporal diversity inherent in training, Temporal Sampling offers a practical, compute-efficient way to surface hidden reasoning ability and rethink how we evaluate LLMs.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表