This paper relies on 1 prerequisite mathematical and architectural foundations.
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.
Addresses critical efficiency and scalability bottlenecks in modern computing systems, providing concrete empirical evidence and reproducible designs.
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.
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.
Trade-offs between peak accuracy and memory overhead remain under investigation across diverse hardware environments.
Foundation models, alongside advances in learned game-world models, are reshaping AI across the game lifecycle. Beyond playing games, recent systems model players and game dynamics, support design and development, adapt player-facing experiences at runtime, and evaluate resulting artifacts. Yet these directions have evolved largely separately, obscuring which capabilities transfer across settings and which remain tied to particular games, engines, interfaces, or player populations. We organize the literature into six roles according to the immediate use of AI output: playing and acting; modeling players and games; designing games; building and maintaining games; generating and adapting at runtime; and testing and evaluating games. For each role, we examine what structure is supplied by the game or workflow, what AI learns or produces, which capabilities and artifacts transfer across settings and roles, and what evidence supports the claims. We identify cross-role connections: trajectories train world models, learned environments provide experience for agents, design specifications drive executable implementations, and play or testing feedback guides revision. However, control schemes, rules, engine interfaces, state representations, and player contexts often remain setting-specific, so downstream claims require validation in the target setting. Evaluation is most standardized for bounded game playing and selected learned environments, while persistent state in learned worlds, repeated software revision, validated player modeling, sustained runtime adaptation, and representative automated testing remain less established. The central challenge is to reuse or transfer outputs and capabilities across roles while re-establishing evidence for effectiveness in the game-specific contexts where they are used.
Realtime spoken interaction demands deep reasoning, prompt responses, and fluid turn-taking. We present StepAudio 3 Realtime, an audio-language foundation model organized around a continuous listen-converse-think-act loop. Deep Perception captures rich acoustic cues to interpret user intent, while Seamless Duplex models synchronized audio streams to handle pauses, backchannels, and interruptions naturally. Crucially, we resolve the tension between deep deliberation and latency via Think-While-Speaking, executing private reasoning in parallel with spoken delivery. In reasoning mode, StepAudio 3 reaches a 73.0 macro average on StepAudioChat. With Think-While-Speaking, it achieves dialogue and reasoning performance comparable to dedicated reasoning models while speaking in real time. Furthermore, an integrated Voice Agent handles asynchronous tool execution without disrupting the dialogue flow. StepAudio 3 Realtime achieves top-tier performance across key dimensions: an exceptional 90.6 on the MMSU benchmark, 98.9 Overall on the Artificial Analysis Full-Duplex Bench, and a 56.0% macro task-success rate on τ-Voice.
