InfraRSI: Harnessing Recursive Self-Improvement for Training Infrastructure
Abstract
While Recursive Self-Improvement (RSI) accelerates isolated algorithm and kernel synthesis, distributed LLM training depends on tightly coupled launch settings, operator kernels, and communication schedules, where single edits often hit out-of-memory (OOM) boundaries, compiler conflicts, measurement jitter, or silent numerical drift. We present InfraRSI, the agentic harness that turns open-ended human commands into verified training optimizations via a five-stage workflow: init locks editable scope and a fixed task contract over workload, loss, and timing invariants to prevent reward hacking, doctor profiles baseline phases and calibrates cluster noise, run co-optimizes launch knobs and code patches before re-verifying top candidates against the baseline and logging findings to a cross-hardware experience bank, and report and apply audit source paths, track failed-trial costs, and commit promoted changes. Rather than stepping greedily from a single incumbent, InfraRSI initializes from diverse experience-seeded configurations and fits global execution-time and censored peak-memory models across all trials, including OOMs. Using these models, it prices per-setting memory costs, revises miscalibrated LLM priors from live runs, and pairs memory-hungry optimizations with memory savers and verified code patches. Across four single- and multi-node dense and Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) LLM workloads, InfraRSI achieves a speedup of up to 2.75times and lifts mean Model FLOPs Utilization (MFU) from 17.4% to 30.0%, outperforming existing tuners and coding agents while transferring experience across GPUs. As it improves training infrastructure efficiency, InfraRSI forms a two-level Recursive Self-Improvement loop---revising priors online within runs and distilling experience across clusters---to push foundation model scaling.
Community
In this paper, we propose InfraRSI, a harness for hardware optimization.
Locking the editable scope and the loss and timing invariants up front, so the agent can't reward-hack its own speedups, is the part I like most. Failed-trial costs being tracked in the report is honest too. Did the invariants ever catch a silent numerical drift that a plain loss check would have missed?
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
- AutoTuneBench: Trustworthy Measurement for Agent Auto-Tuning of LLM Serving Engines (2026)
- ForgeTrain: Forging Production-Grade Training Frameworks via Harness-Driven AI Development (2026)
- Zero-I/O Fault Recovery for Sharded Deep Learning via Dynamic Framework Dependency Rebinding (2026)
- AReaL-TIK: Stateful Agentic Optimization of Unified RL Kernels through an Optimization IR (2026)
- ForgeKernel: Self-Evolving Kernels Catching and Surpassing Experts and Agents (2026)
- SpecPilot: Autonomous Algorithm Discovery and Systems Optimization for Speculative Decoding (2026)
- CANNBot-CAKE: Collaborative Agentic Kernel Evolution for Ascend NPU (2026)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2611.11558 Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper