Self-Improving Reasoning Agents via Reinforcement Learning and Iterative Feedback

Authors

  • Ruperto Llamas Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA. Author
  • Alida Bolander School of Computing, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA. Author
  • Nino Bosio School of Information Technology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA. Author
  • Rachana Mahal Department of Computer Science, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA. Author

Keywords:

self-improving agents; reinforcement learning; iterative feedback; reasoning; governance; infrastructure; robustness; fairness; sustainability; human feedback

Abstract

Self-improving reasoning agents represent a class of artificial intelligence systems that refine their own problem-solving behavior through repeated cycles of reinforcement learning, evaluative feedback, and environmental interaction. Unlike static models that are deployed after a single training phase, these agents are designed to treat reasoning as an evolving capability shaped by feedback from users, tools, simulations, and governance mechanisms. This paper examines the system-level architecture, learning dynamics, infrastructure requirements, and policy implications of such agents. It argues that self-improvement is not merely an algorithmic property but a socio-technical process involving data pipelines, reward design, evaluation regimes, deployment constraints, and institutional oversight. The analysis considers reinforcement learning from human preferences, self-play, verbal reinforcement, self-refinement, and trajectory filtering as complementary mechanisms that can support iterative reasoning. It also investigates structural trade-offs among scalability, robustness, fairness, interpretability, and environmental sustainability. Particular attention is given to the risks of reward hacking, feedback loops, distributional shift, and opaque optimization. The paper concludes that durable self-improvement requires layered governance, auditable feedback channels, and infrastructure that can support continuous evaluation without sacrificing safety or equity. The discussion is relevant to researchers and practitioners building reasoning agents for domains such as software engineering, scientific discovery, education, and decision support.

References

1. Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (2018). Reinforcement learning: An introduction (2nd ed.). MIT Press.

2. Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (4th ed.). Pearson.

3. Christiano, P. F., Leike, J., Brown, T., Martic, M., Legg, S., & Amodei, D. (2017). Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 4299–4307.

4. Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., Schulman, J., Hilton, J., Kelton, F., Miller, L., Simens, M., Askell, A., Welinder, P., Christiano, P., Leike, J., & Lowe, R. (2022). Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 27730–27744.

5. Bai, Y., Jones, A., Ndousse, K., Askell, A., Chen, A., DasSarma, N., Drain, D., Fort, H., Ganguli, D., Henighan, T., Joseph, N., Kadavath, S., Kernion, J., Conerly, T., El-Showk, S., Elhage, N., Hatfield-Dodds, Z., Hernandez, D., Johnston, S., ... Kaplan, J. (2022). Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.05862

6. Schulman, J., Wolski, F., Dhariwal, P., Radford, A., & Klimov, O. (2017). Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1707.06347

7. Silver, D., Hubert, T., Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Lai, M., Guez, A., Lanctot, M., Sifre, L., Kumaran, D., Graepel, T., Lillicrap, T., Simonyan, K., & Hassabis, D. (2018). A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, shogi, and Go through self-play. Science, 362(6419), 1140–1144.

8. LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436–444.

9. Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Ł., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 5998–6008.

10. Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Agarwal, S., Herbert-Voss, A., Krueger, G., Henighan, T., Child, R., Ramesh, A., Ziegler, D. M., Wu, J., Winter, C., ... Amodei, D. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 1877–1901.

11. Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q., & Zhou, D. (2022). Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 24824–24837.

12. Yao, S., Zhao, J., Yu, D., Du, N., Shafran, I., Narasimhan, K., & Cao, Y. (2023). ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. International Conference on Learning Representations.

13. Shinn, N., Cassano, F., Gopinath, A., Narasimhan, K., & Yao, S. (2023). Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 8634–8652.

14. Wang, G., Xie, Y., Jiang, Y., Mandlekar, A., Xiao, C., Zhu, Y., Fan, L., & Anandkumar, A. (2023). Voyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.16291

15. Madaan, A., Tandon, N., Gupta, P., Hallinan, S., Gao, L., Wiegreffe, S., Alon, U., Dziri, N., Prabhumoye, S., Yang, Y., Gupta, S., Majumder, B. P., Hermann, K., Welleck, S., Yazdanbakhsh, A., & Clark, P. (2023). Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 46534–46594.

16. Zelikman, E., Wu, Y., Mu, J., & Goodman, N. D. (2022). STaR: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 15476–15488.

17. Li, Q. (2026, May). TrajLite PPO: Scalable Reasoning Path Filtering and Alignment for Small Parameter Large Language Models. In 2026 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Digital Ethics (ICAIDE) (pp. 29-32). IEEE.

18. Amodei, D., Olah, C., Steinhardt, J., Christiano, P., Schulman, J., & Mané, D. (2016). Concrete problems in AI safety. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1606.06565

19. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922

20. Mitchell, M., Wu, S., Zaldivar, A., Barnes, P., Vasserman, L., Hutchinson, B., Spitzer, E., Raji, I. D., & Gebru, T. (2019). Model cards for model reporting. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287596

21. Sculley, D., Holt, G., Golovin, D., Davydov, E., Phillips, T., Ebner, D., Chaudhary, V., Young, M., Crespo, J.-F., & Dennison, D. (2015). Hidden technical debt in machine learning systems. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 28, 2503–2511.

22. Strubell, E., Ganesh, A., & McCallum, A. (2019). Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in NLP. Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3645–3650. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1355

Downloads

Published

2026-06-22