analiza aiqbench
Reels-RSI advances AI video generation by shifting self-improvement from opaque weight updates to auditable program-level logic, enabling deterministic rendering of explainer videos. This approach allows agents to compile verified rules that retroactively fix latent defects in previously generated content while maintaining human oversight for memory retention. The work demonstrates a robust framework for building reliable, testable AI systems that prioritize code integrity over pixel-perfect generation.
Reels-RSI: Program-Level Self-Improvement for Code-Rendered Explainer Videos
arXiv:2610.14495v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Explainer videos -- a worked geometry problem, why the sky is blue, how a dynasty fell -- are usually one more target for pixel video generation. We argue they are a different kind of artifact: a program (script, storyboard and per-frame animation code) that a deterministic renderer turns into frames. A program can be read, diffed, tested and audited; pixels can only be watched. Reels-RSI is an open-source reel director for any agent harness; its self-improvement happens at the program level rather than in weights or prompts. Every revision pass is logged with a code snapshot; a retrospective pairs each check finding with the diff that fixed it and proposes lessons; a lesson that a static check can catch is compiled into a rule with a must-fail and a must-pass example, so the memory is unit-tested; and a rule learned today runs over everything made before it. A bounded, benchmark-gated step lets an agent rewrite the director's playbook, kept only when blind pairwise judgments on held-out topics prefer it; nothing enters memory without a human decision. Across 111 reels -- a field study, two playbook evolutions, a 2x2 memory ablation, a weaker director, a 48-reel learning curve and a judge-reliability study -- we find that the rule learned in the field caught four latent defects in frames authored before it existed and none after; that rules are an audit for a strong director (eight unguarded reels, no violation) and a guard for a weaker one (thirty violations unguarded versus five); that lessons shorten revision loops but do not compound or move the judge; and that the first rewrite's 11--1 verdict was a position bias in our vote design (judges pick the second-shown reel 62--81% of the time), masking scripts that traded thirteen facts for craft. We document four failure modes of the preference signal, which check caught each, and the fixes. Code, rules, lessons and data are public.
Abstract:Explainer videos -- a worked geometry problem, why the sky is blue, how a dynasty fell -- are usually one more target for pixel video generation. We argue they are a different kind of artifact: a program (script, storyboard and per-frame animation code) that a deterministic renderer turns into frames. A program can be read, diffed, tested and audited; pixels can only be watched. Reels-RSI is an open-source reel director for any agent harness; its self-improvement happens at the program level rather than in weights or prompts. Every revision pass is logged with a code snapshot; a retrospective pairs each check finding with the diff that fixed it and proposes lessons; a lesson that a static check can catch is compiled into a rule with a must-fail and a must-pass example, so the memory is unit-tested; and a rule learned today runs over everything made before it. A bounded, benchmark-gated step lets an agent rewrite the director's playbook, kept only when blind pairwise judgments on held-out topics prefer it; nothing enters memory without a human decision. Across 111 reels -- a field study, two playbook evolutions, a 2x2 memory ablation, a weaker director, a 48-reel learning curve and a judge-reliability study -- we find that the rule learned in the field caught four latent defects in frames authored before it existed and none after; that rules are an audit for a strong director (eight unguarded reels, no violation) and a guard for a weaker one (thirty violations unguarded versus five); that lessons shorten revision loops but do not compound or move the judge; and that the first rewrite's 11--1 verdict was a position bias in our vote design (judges pick the second-shown reel 62--81% of the time), masking scripts that traded thirteen facts for craft. We document four failure modes of the preference signal, which check caught each, and the fixes. Code, rules, lessons and data are public.
19 pages, 4 figures, 9 tables. Code, rules, lessons, data and evolve reports: this https URL
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Graphics (cs.GR); Multimedia (cs.MM); Software Engineering (cs.SE)
arXiv:2610.14495 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2610.14495v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.14495 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 435 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · 13 oct. 2026

Frontier AI Risk Report (February–March 2026)
METR · 19 mai 2026

Informe de riesgos de la IA de frontera (febrero–marzo de 2026)
METR · 19 mai 2026

Frontier Risk Report (February to March 2026)
METR · 19 mai 2026