arXiv:2611.14256v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Recent work shows that multimodal agents increasingly self-improve without recurring human annotation. However, each self-improvement mechanism is designed and evaluated within a single scenario, leaving its preconditions unverified under cross-scenario transfer. This survey investigates the structural source of asymmetric mechanism transfer across four scenarios: multimodal reasoning, multimodal generation, GUI and Web navigation, and embodied manipulation. We first formalize the self-evolving multimodal agent by four criteria and a differentia of self-reference, and adopt the three-stage self-evolving loop of experience generation, feedback acquisition, and update consolidation as our analytical framework to position the scenarios along ceilings on rollout count and feedback fidelity. Comparing self-evolving with fixed loops within each scenario separates the limitations that the scenario imposes from those inherent in the self-evolving design. We then recast each mechanism as a trade-off that raises a scarce factor by presupposing a task-structural resource, such as output equivalence or checkable outcomes, and judge it portable, conditional, blocked, or redundant across scenarios. We attribute the asymmetry to divergent combinations of scarce factors and resources across opposite transfer directions, and identify the matched-budget measurements that could overturn these still untested verdicts.
Abstract: Recent work shows that multimodal agents increasingly self-improve without recurring human annotation. However, each self-improvement mechanism is designed and evaluated within a single scenario, leaving its preconditions unverified under cross-scenario transfer. This survey investigates the structural source of asymmetric mechanism transfer across four scenarios: multimodal reasoning, multimodal generation, GUI and Web navigation, and embodied manipulation. We first formalize the self-evolving multimodal agent by four criteria and a differentia of self-reference, and adopt the three-stage self-evolving loop of experience generation, feedback acquisition, and update consolidation as our analytical framework to position the scenarios along ceilings on rollout count and feedback fidelity. Comparing self-evolving with fixed loops within each scenario separates the limitations that the scenario imposes from those inherent in the self-evolving design. We then recast each mechanism as a trade-off that raises a scarce factor by presupposing a task-structural resource, such as output equivalence or checkable outcomes, and judge it portable, conditional, blocked, or redundant across scenarios. We attribute the asymmetry to divergent combinations of scarce factors and resources across opposite transfer directions, and identify the matched-budget measurements that could overturn these still untested verdicts.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org