arXiv Survey Splits Recursive AI Self-Improvement into Five Levels of Autonomy

Recursive Self-Improvement (RSI) long remained a subject of philosophical debate. Now people are trying to measure it. In a new arXiv survey (2609.11873), the authors propose a scale of five autonomy levels, and Habr has published a breakdown that tries to map those levels onto what current systems can already do. The starting point is simple: models write code, run tests, notice failures and make fixes, and with the right tools this loop can run many times without a human.

The breakdown's announcement does not retell every detail of the scale. The description of each of the five levels is in the survey itself, so below we rely on its framing of the question and on well-known public examples.

Where automation ends

The main difficulty is definition. An agent that fixes a bug in someone else's application is doing automation. It improves an external artifact and stays the same itself. It becomes self-improvement when the thing being edited is what generates the improvements: the agent's prompts, its scaffolding and toolset, training data, training algorithms and, at the limit, the model weights.

This is a working distinction, not a quote from the survey. It is useful because it turns the fuzzy debate over whether "AI is getting smarter on its own" into an engineering question. You have to decide which layer of the system the agent may change and who verifies the result.

What is already visible in real systems

The examples below come from 2025 publications, not from the survey. They show how close real systems get to this boundary.

• AlphaEvolve (Google DeepMind): an evolutionary agent built on Gemini that rewrites code and algorithms. According to DeepMind, it recovered about 0.7% of Google's compute resources and sped up one of the kernels used in Gemini training by 23%. Training time fell by roughly 1%.
• Darwin Gödel Machine (Sakana AI): an agent that rewrites its own code and keeps an archive of versions. Its SWE-bench result rose from 20.0% to 50.0%, and on Polyglot from 14.2% to 30.7%.
• What they share: the model does not change its weights. The scaffolding, code and algorithms around it improve, and an external metric decides whether an edit is accepted.

This list shows that the lower and middle rungs of such a scale already exist as working systems. The upper levels, where the system sets its own improvement goals and retrains itself without external verification, remain theoretical for now.

Why the scale matters in practice

The binary question "is this RSI yet or not" is useless. Grading by autonomy lets people be more specific: what the agent changes, how independently, and what limits it. For regulators and labs, this vocabulary is more practical than talk of abstract danger. Different levels call for different controls.

Self-improving systems also have a known weakness: they optimize the metric, not the task. In the Darwin Gödel Machine paper, the authors themselves described cases where the agent tailored its behavior to the check instead of genuinely improving. The higher the autonomy, the more important it is that evaluation does not come from the agent itself.

What teams building agents should do

The practical takeaway is short. If you run agents that edit code and configurations, list the layers they are allowed to change: product code, prompts, tools, the evaluation pipeline. The last layer should be locked against writes. Keep a history of every edit with the ability to roll back, maintain an independent test suite outside the agent's loop, and keep a human at the step where the improvement mechanism itself changes. The scale proposed in the survey works as a checklist for this kind of inventory. To check it against your own systems, you will need to read the original text on arXiv, not just the retelling.