EndoRSI: Letting a Robot's Own Experiments Drive Its Policy Research

A robot-policy researcher’s most valuable skill is reading a failed experiment and knowing what to change. This paper asks whether an agent can take on part of that, with physical experiments as its evidence.

Background

AI has started to automate parts of scientific discovery, but physical robot-policy research still runs on people. When a controller fails, a scientist or engineer has to interpret the failure and decide which representation, data or strategy to revise, a loop that is slow and does not scale with the number of candidate policies. What has been missing is a way to let the robot’s own experiments serve as the evidence that drives the research, rather than relying on offline metrics that may not predict closed-loop behaviour.

Core Innovation

EndoRSI (Endoscopic Recursive Self-Improvement) is a human-governed, self-improving robotic research system. An embedded coding agent, EndoForge, iteratively develops and refines endoscopic robot policies, but its evidence comes from physical experiments, not only from offline scores. Physical execution stays inside a safety-constrained runtime and proceeds only under human authorisation, so the autonomy is bounded by design. The loop proved substantive rather than decorative. Validation evidence first led the agent to reject an initial action representation. Later, physical experiments falsified an insertion strategy that offline evidence had supported, because the real closed-loop behaviour was hazardous in a way the source data did not reveal. Failed physical rollouts were then folded back into policy revision: the falsification itself became training signal.

Results

• Insertion success increased from 2/21 in the first generation to 17/21 in the fourth.
• The frozen final policy retained competence across visual and hardware shifts.
• It was the best-performing autonomous policy across six independent ex-vivo porcine specimens.
• The research loop rejected an initial action representation and later overturned an offline-supported insertion strategy on the strength of physical evidence.

Limitations

The evidence is a single task family, motorised endoscopy, so how far the recursive-improvement loop transfers to other procedures and embodiments is untested. The system is explicitly human-governed: a person authorises physical execution and the loop runs inside a safety-constrained runtime, so the autonomy is bounded on purpose, and the reported gains reflect that partnership rather than unattended self-improvement. The sample is small (21 trials per generation, six ex-vivo specimens), and the paper reports no comparison against a human-designed or conventional policy baseline, so it shows that the loop improves rather than that it beats expert-driven development. Generalisation claims rest on shifts within the evaluated setting.

Industry Implications

For surgical and other high-stakes robotics, the significance is the governance shape as much as the result: a coding agent that proposes and revises policies while a safety runtime and human authorisation gate every physical execution is a template for automating research without handing an untethered system the actuators. It suggests a practical division of labour, in which machines run the many candidate experiments and mine failures for signal while humans hold the authorisation key. It also makes the case that offline validation is not sufficient evidence for closed-loop deployment: here a strategy that passed offline was rejected only when it ran on hardware, a caution for anyone deploying policies that were never stress-tested in the loop.