Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Retrieval-head attention reveals how agents actually use memory during tasks, and feeding that signal back into memory refinement improves both task success and memory efficiency.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 17:27 UTC pith:3MUBBGO5

load-bearing objection Real idea, decent gains, solid masking checks — but the only attention-removal ablation also changes the prompt and drops a whole LLM call, so the mechanistic claim is underdetermined. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17621 v1 pith:3MUBBGO5 submitted 2026-07-20 cs.AI

Mechanistic Attention Guidance for Agent Memory Refinement

Yechao Hong , Haiquan Qiu , Yaqing Wang , Quanming Yao This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords retrieval-head attentionagent memory refinementcontext utilization matrixmechanistic interpretabilityLLM agentsinteractive decision-makingmemory efficiencyself-evolving memory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that text-only memory refinement is blind to how retrieved memory is actually used, and that attention from retrieval-specialized heads provides a direct mechanistic signal of segment-level use. It constructs a context utilization matrix from attention over memory segments at each decision step, revealing recurring patterns: attended-but-wrong, missed relevant memory, distracted-by-irrelevant memory, and low-utilization redundancy. On this basis it proposes AGMR, which applies targeted segment-level fixes—correcting, emphasizing, rewriting, or pruning—and verifies each update by re-execution. The claimed outcome is consistently better task reward and fewer memory tokens than text-only refinement baselines across three interactive benchmarks.

Core claim

The central claim is that retrieval-head attention is a faithful proxy for which memory segments an agent actually relies on, and that this signal can be turned into a structured diagnostic. By aggregating attention from the selected retrieval heads over memory segments and decision steps, the paper derives a context utilization matrix C. Across failed and successful executions, this matrix exposes interpretable memory-use patterns—misleading attended segments, missed relevant segments, distracting irrelevant segments, and weakly used redundant segments—each mapping to a distinct refinement strategy. AGMR uses those strategies to modify memory, then commits only updates that survive re-execu

What carries the argument

The context utilization matrix C: for each retrieved segmented trajectory memory, the agent aggregates attention from the top-5 retrieval heads to each memory segment at each decision step, rescaling by prompt length to form an (L+1)×(T+1) matrix. This matrix is the mechanistic evidence that drives the Attention-Guided Refiner's diagnosis and segment-level edit decisions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the top-5 retrieval heads selected on a small supervision set are the primary channel through which memory is utilized across all test tasks and environments, yet the masking validation only covers ALFWorld and SciWorld and does not demonstrate that these heads are stable or sufficient on the full task distribution.

What would settle it

A reader could look for a direct contradiction by masking the selected retrieval heads on WebShop or on held-out ALFWorld/SciWorld tasks: if trajectory-memory gains persist when those heads are masked, or if a randomized control produces the same drop, the attention signal is not mechanistically tied to memory utilization. Alternatively, removing a segment that the attention matrix scores as high-utilization and observing no performance drop would undercut the claim that attention strength tracks segment usefulness.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If attention-based utilization is reliable, memory refinement no longer depends solely on model-generated reflection, which the paper argues can be post-hoc and unfaithful.
  • Failed executions can be attributed to specific memory-use mechanisms—misleading content, missed retrieval, or attention competition—rather than to vague textual causes.
  • Successful executions can be safely simplified by pruning segments that are both semantically redundant and weakly attended, reducing memory token counts without harming performance.
  • Re-execution verification means harmful memory edits are rolled back, so improvements accumulate only when they demonstrably hold in the environment.
  • The same attention-derived utilization matrix can be used to inspect how refined memory reshapes behavior, providing a tool for post-hoc analysis of agent decisions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The selection of retrieval heads is the pivot: if the top-5 heads identified on a small supervision set do not remain the dominant memory-utilization channel on new tasks or environments, the whole utilization matrix loses its meaning. A direct test would mask those heads on WebShop—where the paper does not report masking validation—and compare memory-induced gains.
  • Attention strength here is treated as utilization causality, but it could also be tracking tokens that are merely salient for other reasons. A useful check would compare the attention-derived ranking of segment importance against an independent causal ranking from counterfactual segment removal.
  • The framework's dependence on re-execution verification makes it expensive in the loop, but a natural extension the paper leaves implicit is to train a lightweight predictor of verification outcome from the utilization pattern, potentially enabling online refinement without full re-execution.
  • The SciWorld task filtering described in the appendix was introduced as an implementation constraint rather than a design choice; readers should note that the reported SciWorld numbers cover a subset of task types and not the full benchmark.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Attention-Guided Memory Refinement (AGMR), a framework that extracts a context utilization matrix from the attention of a small set of 'retrieval heads' in an LLM, and uses this matrix to guide segment-level memory edits. The framework first selects retrieval heads using a supervised set of prompt–key-context pairs, then aggregates attention over memory segments during execution. For failed tasks, AGMR diagnoses one of three failure modes (attended-but-wrong, missed relevant memory, distracted by irrelevant memory) and performs targeted edits; for successful tasks, it prunes weakly utilized, semantically redundant segments. Each edit is verified by re-execution. Experiments on ALFWorld, ScienceWorld, and WebShop with two backbone LLMs report improvements over several text-only memory baselines, with supporting masking analyses and a short ablation.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper makes a useful contribution: it connects mechanistic attention signals to memory utilization in agentic LLMs and demonstrates a concrete downstream use of that signal for memory refinement. The masking validations in Figures 2 and 3 are a clear strength: they provide behavioral evidence that high-scoring retrieval heads and high-attention segments are functionally important. The released code and reproducible experimental protocol are also positive. However, the present evidence does not yet establish that the attention-derived matrix is the causal driver of AGMR's improvements, and the evaluation has several unaddressed weaknesses (no error bars, a filtered SciWorld subset, head selection on the same task distribution). The core idea is promising, but the current manuscript requires additional controls and analyses to support the mechanistic claim.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.2, Table 1] Table 1 reports performance, step counts, and memory tokens without error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Since benchmarks like WebShop and SciWorld can have meaningful run-to-run variance, the claimed improvements—especially smaller ones, e.g., Qwen WebShop 63.86 vs. Traj 51.04, or Llama SciWorld 83.74 vs. Traj 76.18—cannot be assessed for reliability. Add multiple runs and report variance/significance for at least the central AGMR-vs-Traj comparison.
  2. [§4.4, Table 2] The w/o AGR ablation removes the entire Attention-Guided Refiner, including its structured prompt, the context utilization matrix C, and an extra Gemini LLM call. This confounds the effect of the attention mechanism with the presence of an additional analysis stage and a different prompt format. A control should feed a random or permuted C into the same Attention-Guided Refiner prompt, or otherwise replace the attention values with a non-informative baseline while keeping the prompt structure identical. Without such a control, the reported gains cannot be attributed specifically to the attention-derived signal.
  3. [§2.1, Appendix C.1] Retrieval heads are selected using supervision drawn from the same task distribution as the evaluation, and the annotation is generated by an LLM analyzer. The masking validation covers only ALFWorld and SciWorld, not WebShop, so it is unknown whether the selected heads are stable or sufficient for the WebShop mechanism. Add a WebShop head-masking experiment or otherwise justify that the head set transfers to WebShop.
  4. [Appendix E.1] The SciWorld evaluation uses a filtered test set that excludes seven task types with max_steps >= 60, including boil, freeze, melt, and chemistry-mix tasks. The paper states this was an early implementation constraint. Since the abstract and introduction claim improvements on 'interactive decision-making benchmarks' without this caveat, the filtered evaluation weakens the generality of the claim. Please report results on the full SciWorld test set using the fixed attention-hook implementation, or present the filtered-subset limitations prominently in the main text.
  5. [§3.1, Appendix E.2] Several refinement thresholds are set per benchmark without sensitivity analysis: 1.2 × median, the 3.5 ratio, 0.25 × global maximum, 0.9 × global maximum, and the reward-improvement thresholds. Since the Attention-Guided Refiner's decisions depend on these hand-set values, it is important to show that results are not brittle to threshold choices. Report a small sensitivity study or justify the chosen values.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 2] The masking bars report reward changes but no error bars or number of tasks used per condition. Consider reporting variance or at least stating the evaluation size.
  2. [§2.2, Figure 4] The representative cases are drawn from ALFWorld training tasks. It would be clearer to state explicitly whether these examples were part of the supervision data used for head selection and/or threshold tuning; otherwise the examples may appear cherry-picked.
  3. [§4.2, Figure 7] Figure 7 groups tasks by the AGMR refiner's own diagnosis. This is useful descriptively but cannot by itself validate that the attention matrix caused the gains. Please add a sentence clarifying that this figure is descriptive and not causal evidence.
  4. [Appendix F] The prompt templates include 'omitted' placeholders for the actual trajectories and attention distributions. For reproducibility, include at least one fully filled example, even if shortened.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: derivation is anchored by external task reward and behavioral masking checks.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation is: retrieval-head attention (selected by scoring heads on a small supervision set) is aggregated into a context utilization matrix C; C is validated by masking tests; AGMR uses C to guide refinement; final performance is measured by task reward on held-out test sets. None of these steps reduces to its own input by construction. The head-selection supervision (Appendix C.1) is a fitted input, but the paper does not present it as a prediction; the masking experiments (Figures 2 and 3) provide an independent behavioral check that the selected heads and high-attention segments are functionally important, and the final AGMR scores are external environment rewards. The w/o AGR ablation (Table 2) may be confounded with prompt/format changes, but that is a correctness/experimental-design concern, not a definitional circularity. No load-bearing self-citations are used: the mechanistic-interpretability citations [34, 40] are external prior work, and the scenario grouping in Figure 7 is a consistency check on the system's own diagnoses with external reward as the outcome. Per-benchmark thresholds (Appendix E.2) are hyperparameters, not renamed predictions. Therefore the derivation is self-contained and no circular step can be exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

Free parameters are the hand-set thresholds and counts used across the pipeline (Appendix C, E, F). Axioms are the key domain assumptions about attention fidelity, head generality, semantic analysis accuracy, and reward validity. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced; the context utilization matrix is a constructed representation of existing attention signals.

free parameters (7)
  • retrieval_head_count = 5
    Top-5 scoring heads (per model) selected as Hret; no sensitivity analysis across k.
  • ALFWorld_low_utilization_thresholds = 1.2×median(cmax) and cmax/c̄ < 3.5
    Hand-set relative thresholds for classifying segments as weakly utilized in successful-task simplification (Appendix E.2).
  • SciWorld_low_attention_threshold = 0.25×c_max_global_capped
    Hand-set global threshold used for SciWorld simplification (Appendix E.2).
  • WebShop_low_attention_threshold = 0.9×c_max_global
    Hand-set global threshold for WebShop simplification (Appendix E.2).
  • refinement_attempts = 3 for ALFWorld/SciWorld, 2 for WebShop
    Max retry count in re-execution verification (Appendix E.2).
  • reward_improvement_threshold = 0.3 for ALFWorld/SciWorld, 0.0 for WebShop
    Threshold for accepting a failed-task refinement even without full success (Appendix E.2).
  • high_attention_threshold_factors = 1.5×average and 0.5×global maximum
    Thresholds embedded in the Attention-Guided Refiner prompt to classify attention scenarios (Appendix F).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Attention from the query token to memory segment tokens is a valid proxy for segment-level memory utilization.
    Central premise of the context utilization matrix; supported by masking tests in §2.1 (Figs 2-3) on ALFWorld/SciWorld, but not on WebShop.
  • domain assumption The selected top-5 retrieval heads are the dominant heads through which memory is utilized on all test tasks.
    Hret is chosen from a supervision set constructed from training tasks; the masking test only covers two of three environments, and no head-set generalization analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption The Semantic Reflector correctly localizes the earliest critical error and the supporting memory segment in failed runs.
    This textual analysis feeds the Attention-Guided Refiner; errors here would misdirect edits, though re-execution verification partially mitigates them.
  • domain assumption Re-execution reward is a reliable measure of memory quality.
    Used as ground truth for committing updates; noisy or partial reward could admit bad edits. Assumed in §3.2.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18073 in / 11550 out tokens · 107084 ms · 2026-08-01T17:27:28.024235+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Existing self-evolving memory systems mainly improve agent memory based on textual outputs, such as task trajectories and reflections. However, this text-based paradigm rarely incorporates internal mechanistic signals, leaving how retrieved memory is actually utilized during task execution underexplored. This limitation can lead to unreliable error attribution and hallucinated memory modifications. In this work, we show that retrieval-head attention provides a mechanistic signal for revealing segment-level memory utilization. By aggregating attention over memory segments and decision steps, we construct a context utilization matrix that exposes recurring memory-use patterns and indicates corresponding refinement strategies. Building on this observation, we propose Attention-Guided Memory Refinement (AGMR), a framework that uses utilization patterns revealed by attention to guide targeted segment-level memory updates. AGMR corrects or enhances memory for failed executions, simplifies memory for successful executions, and verifies each update through re-execution. Experiments on interactive decision-making benchmarks show that AGMR improves both task performance and memory efficiency over text-only memory refinement baselines. Code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/AGMR_code-3262/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17621 by Haiquan Qiu, Quanming Yao, Yaqing Wang, Yechao Hong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Mechanistic attention guidance enables more grounded memory refinement, leading to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Ablation validation of identified retrieval heads. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Masking high-attention mem￾ory segments causes a much larger perfor￾mance drop than masking low-attention segments, supporting attention strength as a proxy for memory utilization. Because observations can be extremely long and vary substantially across segments, we define s¯ℓ ⊆ sℓ by excluding observation tokens from segment sℓ. For the generation of the t-th step ut, let qt be the last prompt token immed… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Context utilization matrices of representative cases: (a) attended but wrong, (b) missed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview of AGMR. AGMR retrieves a segmented trajectory memory entry for a task, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Context utilization matrix after AGMR; diamonds denote expected memory use. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Scenario-wise performance comparison. The most direct comparison is between AGMR and Traj, since AGMR is refined from the trajectory memory. Across all settings, AGMR improves performance over Traj while generally reducing the number of memory tokens. This sug￾gests that AGMR does not simply benefit from adding more context; instead, it improves memory quality by strengthen￾ing useful segments and removing… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Retrieval Score heatmaps for all attention heads in Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct (left) and Llama [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Proportions of memory-use scenarios among failed tasks under six experimental settings. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 19 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Faithfulness vs

    Chirag Agarwal, Sree Harsha Tanneru, and Himabindu Lakkaraju. Faithfulness vs. plausi- bility: On the (un) reliability of explanations from large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04614, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Chain-of-thought reasoning in the wild is not always faithful.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08679, 2025

    Iván Arcuschin, Jett Janiak, Robert Krzyzanowski, Senthooran Rajamanoharan, Neel Nanda, and Arthur Conmy. Chain-of-thought reasoning in the wild is not always faithful.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08679, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Understanding the skill gap in recurrent language models: The role of the gather-and-aggregate mechanism.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.18574, 2025

    Aviv Bick, Eric Xing, and Albert Gu. Understanding the skill gap in recurrent language models: The role of the gather-and-aggregate mechanism.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.18574, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Flex: Continuous agent evolution via forward learning from experience.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.06449, 2025

    Zhicheng Cai, Xinyuan Guo, Yu Pei, Jiangtao Feng, Jinsong Su, Jiangjie Chen, Ya-Qin Zhang, Wei-Ying Ma, Mingxuan Wang, and Hao Zhou. Flex: Continuous agent evolution via forward learning from experience.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.06449, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Remember me, refine me: A dynamic procedural memory framework for experience-driven agent evolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.10696, 2025

    Zouying Cao, Jiaji Deng, Li Yu, Weikang Zhou, Zhaoyang Liu, Bolin Ding, and Hai Zhao. Remember me, refine me: A dynamic procedural memory framework for experience-driven agent evolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.10696, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Mem0: Building production-ready ai agents with scalable long-term memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19413, 2025

    Prateek Chhikara, Dev Khant, Saket Aryan, Taranjeet Singh, and Deshraj Yadav. Mem0: Building production-ready ai agents with scalable long-term memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19413, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    FaithLM: Towards faithful explanations for Large Language Models

    Yu-Neng Chuang, Guanchu Wang, Chia-Yuan Chang, Ruixiang Tang, Shaochen Zhong, Fan Yang, Andrew Wen, Mengnan Du, Xuanting Cai, Vladimir Braverman, et al. FaithLM: Towards faithful explanations for Large Language Models. InProceedings of the 19th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pag...

    2026

  8. [8]

    Trajectory-informed memory generation for self-improving agent systems

    Gaodan Fang, Vatche Isahagian, KR Jayaram, Ritesh Kumar, Vinod Muthusamy, Punleuk Oum, and Gegi Thomas. Trajectory-informed memory generation for self-improving agent systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.10600, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Memp: Exploring agent procedural memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.06433, 2025

    Runnan Fang, Yuan Liang, Xiaobin Wang, Jialong Wu, Shuofei Qiao, Pengjun Xie, Fei Huang, Huajun Chen, and Ningyu Zhang. Memp: Exploring agent procedural memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.06433, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Efficient prompt compression with evaluator heads for long-context transformer inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12959, 2025

    Weizhi Fei, Xueyan Niu, Guoqing Xie, Yingqing Liu, Bo Bai, and Wei Han. Efficient prompt compression with evaluator heads for long-context transformer inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12959, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    The Llama 3 herd of models, 2024

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, et al. The Llama 3 herd of models, 2024

    2024

  12. [12]

    Hia- gent: Hierarchical working memory management for solving long-horizon agent tasks with Large Language Model

    Mengkang Hu, Tianxing Chen, Qiguang Chen, Yao Mu, Wenqi Shao, and Ping Luo. Hia- gent: Hierarchical working memory management for solving long-horizon agent tasks with Large Language Model. InProceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 32779–32798, 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    Memory in the age of ai agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.13564, 2025

    Yuyang Hu, Shichun Liu, Yanwei Yue, Guibin Zhang, Boyang Liu, Fangyi Zhu, Jiahang Lin, Honglin Guo, Shihan Dou, Zhiheng Xi, et al. Memory in the age of ai agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.13564, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Rap: Retrieval-augmented planning with contextual memory for multimodal llm agents, 2024

    Tomoyuki Kagaya, Thong Jing Yuan, Yuxuan Lou, Jayashree Karlekar, Sugiri Pranata, Akira Kinose, Koki Oguri, Felix Wick, and Yang You. Rap: Retrieval-augmented planning with contextual memory for multimodal llm agents, 2024

    2024

  15. [15]

    The atlas of in-context learning: How attention heads shape in-context retrieval augmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.15807, 2025

    Patrick Kahardipraja, Reduan Achtibat, Thomas Wiegand, Wojciech Samek, and Sebastian Lapuschkin. The atlas of in-context learning: How attention heads shape in-context retrieval augmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.15807, 2025. 11

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Why language models hallucinate.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.04664, 2025

    Adam Tauman Kalai, Ofir Nachum, Santosh S Vempala, and Edwin Zhang. Why language models hallucinate.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.04664, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    SnapKV: LLM knows what you are looking for before generation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:22947–22970, 2024

    Yuhong Li, Yingbing Huang, Bowen Yang, Bharat Venkitesh, Acyr Locatelli, Hanchen Ye, Tianle Cai, Patrick Lewis, and Deming Chen. SnapKV: LLM knows what you are looking for before generation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:22947–22970, 2024

    2024

  18. [18]

    Zichang Liu, Aditya Desai, Fangshuo Liao, Weitao Wang, Victor Xie, Zhaozhuo Xu, Anastasios Kyrillidis, and Anshumali Shrivastava. Scissorhands: Exploiting the persistence of impor- tance hypothesis for llm kv cache compression at test time.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:52342–52364, 2023

    2023

  19. [19]

    Reasoningbank: Scaling agent self-evolving with reasoning memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25140, 2025

    Siru Ouyang, Jun Yan, I Hsu, Yanfei Chen, Ke Jiang, Zifeng Wang, Rujun Han, Long T Le, Samira Daruki, Xiangru Tang, et al. Reasoningbank: Scaling agent self-evolving with reasoning memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25140, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    MemGPT: towards LLMs as operating systems, 2023

    Charles Packer, Vivian Fang, Shishir_G Patil, Kevin Lin, Sarah Wooders, and Joseph_E Gonza- lez. MemGPT: towards LLMs as operating systems, 2023

    2023

  21. [21]

    Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior

    Joon Sung Park, Joseph O’Brien, Carrie Jun Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S Bernstein. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. InProceed- ings of the 36th annual acm symposium on user interface software and technology, pages 1–22, 2023

    2023

  22. [22]

    Qwen2.5 technical report, 2025

    Qwen, :, An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxi Yang, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kai Dang, Keming Lu, Keqin Bao, Kexin Yang, Le Yu, Mei Li, Mingfeng Xue, Pei Zhang, Qin Zhu, Rui Men, Runji Lin, Tianhao Li,...

    2025

  23. [23]

    Towards understanding sycophancy in language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13548, 2023

    Mrinank Sharma, Meg Tong, Tomasz Korbak, David Duvenaud, Amanda Askell, Samuel R Bowman, Newton Cheng, Esin Durmus, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Scott R Johnston, et al. Towards understanding sycophancy in language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13548, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:8634–8652, 2023

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:8634–8652, 2023

    2023

  25. [25]

    ALFWorld: Aligning text and embodied environments for interactive learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03768, 2020

    Mohit Shridhar, Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Yonatan Bisk, Adam Trischler, and Matthew Hausknecht. ALFWorld: Aligning text and embodied environments for interactive learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03768, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  26. [26]

    The hallucination tax of reinforcement finetuning

    Linxin Song, Taiwei Shi, and Jieyu Zhao. The hallucination tax of reinforcement finetuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13988, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Trial and Error: Exploration-based trajectory optimization of LLM agents

    Yifan Song, Da Yin, Xiang Yue, Jie Huang, Sujian Li, and Bill Yuchen Lin. Trial and Error: Exploration-based trajectory optimization of LLM agents. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7584–7600, 2024

    2024

  28. [28]

    Dynamic Cheatsheet: Test-time learning with adaptive memory

    Mirac Suzgun, Mert Yuksekgonul, Federico Bianchi, Dan Jurafsky, and James Zou. Dynamic Cheatsheet: Test-time learning with adaptive memory. InProceedings of the 19th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7080–7106, 2026

    2026

  29. [29]

    Language Models don’t always say what they think: Unfaithful explanations in Chain-of-Thought prompting.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:74952–74965, 2023

    Miles Turpin, Julian Michael, Ethan Perez, and Samuel Bowman. Language Models don’t always say what they think: Unfaithful explanations in Chain-of-Thought prompting.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:74952–74965, 2023. 12

    2023

  30. [30]

    V oyager: An open-ended embodied agent with Large Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291, 2023

    Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Mandlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. V oyager: An open-ended embodied agent with Large Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    ScienceWorld: Is your agent smarter than a 5th grader? InProceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 11279–11298, 2022

    Ruoyao Wang, Peter Jansen, Marc-Alexandre Côté, and Prithviraj Ammanabrolu. ScienceWorld: Is your agent smarter than a 5th grader? InProceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 11279–11298, 2022

    2022

  32. [32]

    Quito: Accelerat- ing long-context reasoning through query-guided context compression

    Wenshan Wang, Yihang Wang, Yixing Fan, Huaming Liao, and Jiafeng Guo. Quito: Accelerat- ing long-context reasoning through query-guided context compression. InChina Conference on Information Retrieval, pages 136–148. Springer, 2024

    2024

  33. [33]

    Agent workflow memory

    Zora Zhiruo Wang, Jiayuan Mao, Daniel Fried, and Graham Neubig. Agent workflow memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07429, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Retrieval head mecha- nistically explains long-context factuality

    Wenhao Wu, Yizhong Wang, Guangxuan Xiao, Hao Peng, and Yao Fu. Retrieval head mecha- nistically explains long-context factuality. 2024

    2024

  35. [35]

    A-mem: Agentic memory for LLM agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12110, 2025

    Wujiang Xu, Zujie Liang, Kai Mei, Hang Gao, Juntao Tan, and Yongfeng Zhang. A-mem: Agentic memory for LLM agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12110, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Memory-r1: Enhancing large language model agents to manage and utilize memories via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.19828, 2025

    Sikuan Yan, Xiufeng Yang, Zuchao Huang, Ercong Nie, Zifeng Ding, Zonggen Li, Xiaowen Ma, Jinhe Bi, Kristian Kersting, Jeff Z Pan, et al. Memory-r1: Enhancing large language model agents to manage and utilize memories via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.19828, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Webshop: Towards scalable real-world web interaction with grounded language agents.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:20744–20757, 2022

    Shunyu Yao, Howard Chen, John Yang, and Karthik Narasimhan. Webshop: Towards scalable real-world web interaction with grounded language agents.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:20744–20757, 2022

    2022

  38. [38]

    React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629, 2022

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Agentic context engineering: Evolving contexts for self-improving language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.04618, 2025

    Qizheng Zhang, Changran Hu, Shubhangi Upasani, Boyuan Ma, Fenglu Hong, Vamsidhar Ka- manuru, Jay Rainton, Chen Wu, Mengmeng Ji, Hanchen Li, et al. Agentic context engineering: Evolving contexts for self-improving language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.04618, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Query-focused Retrieval Heads improve long-context reasoning and re-ranking

    Wuwei Zhang, Fangcong Yin, Howard Yen, Danqi Chen, and Xi Ye. Query-focused Retrieval Heads improve long-context reasoning and re-ranking. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 23802–23816, 2025

    2025

  41. [41]

    H2o: Heavy-hitter oracle for efficient generative inference of large language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:34661–34710, 2023

    Zhenyu Zhang, Ying Sheng, Tianyi Zhou, Tianlong Chen, Lianmin Zheng, Ruisi Cai, Zhao Song, Yuandong Tian, Christopher Ré, Clark Barrett, et al. H2o: Heavy-hitter oracle for efficient generative inference of large language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:34661–34710, 2023

    2023

  42. [42]

    Expel: LLM agents are experiential learners

    Andrew Zhao, Daniel Huang, Quentin Xu, Matthieu Lin, Yong-Jin Liu, and Gao Huang. Expel: LLM agents are experiential learners. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 19632–19642, 2024

    2024

  43. [43]

    Leveraging attention to effectively compress prompts for long-context llms

    Yunlong Zhao, Haoran Wu, and Bo Xu. Leveraging attention to effectively compress prompts for long-context llms. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, pages 26048–26056, 2025

    2025

  44. [44]

    Synapse: Trajectory-as-exemplar prompting with memory for computer control

    Longtao Zheng, Rundong Wang, Xinrun Wang, and Bo An. Synapse: Trajectory-as-exemplar prompting with memory for computer control. 2023

    2023

  45. [45]

    Memorybank: Enhancing Large Language Models with long-term memory

    Wanjun Zhong, Lianghong Guo, Qiqi Gao, He Ye, and Yanlin Wang. Memorybank: Enhancing Large Language Models with long-term memory. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 38, pages 19724–19731, 2024. 13 A Related works Memory refinement in LLM agents.Memory has become a central component of LLM agents, enabling past interact...

    2024

  46. [46]

    Construct an Optimal Trajectory based ONLY on the Expert Trajectory

  47. [47]

    Identify the FIRST erroneous step in the Agent Action Trajectory via stepwise alignment with the Optimal Trajectory.,→

  48. [48]

    Provide the Corrected Step that the agent should have taken, strictly grounded in the Expert Trajectory.,→

  49. [49]

    Identify the step in the Expert Trajectory that corresponds to the Corrected Step, and output it as the Expert Trajectory Reference.,→ ------------------------------------------------------------ Section 1 (MANDATORY): OPTIMAL TRAJECTORY CONSTRUCTION Before performing any failure analysis, you MUST first construct an Optimal Trajectory. Definition: The Op...

  50. [50]

    Analyze the attention distribution to determine which segments the LLM actually relied on when producing the erroneous Thought and Action.,→

  51. [51]

    Explain how this attention allocation led to the incorrect reasoning and behavior based on LLM Analysis Response and Erroneous Step Context.,→

  52. [52]

    [Erroneous Step Context] From [Task Trajectory]

    Modify the relevant segment to prevent similar failures in future executions. [Erroneous Step Context] From [Task Trajectory]. Context window includes up to 3 Thought/Action/Observation groups immediately before the Erroneous Step.,→ Context window: 3 step(s) before the Erroneous Step. omitted === LLM Analysis Response === omitted ========================...

  53. [53]

    Attention Pattern Analysis: <Analyze which scenario applies based on the attention scores>

  54. [54]

    Root Cause Identification: <Identify why the LLM made the error at the mechanism level, and determine WHICH segment(s) require modification as a direct result of this error>,→

  55. [55]

    [/INST] Thought

    Modification Strategy: <Explain HOW the identified segment(s) will be modified. The strategy should primarily focus on the erroneous *Thought* in the [Erroneous Step].,→ It should describe how the incorrect reasoning or intention expressed in that Thought can be corrected, constrained, or redirected, with the explanation grounded in both the attention pat...