Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Learning What to Remember and What to Internalize in LLM Self-Evolution via Adaptive Memory-Parameter Coordination

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An LLM agent that routes each piece of feedback to either its external memory or its model weights, based on how volatile the knowledge is, improves more robustly and 86% more cheaply than using either channel alone.

desk verdict Coherent framework and a genuine anti-recitation idea, but the empirical case is thinner than the abstract implies—worth reviewing, not accepting as-is. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01234 v1 pith:P6LSS47W submitted 2026-08-02 cs.AI

Tianyun Ji , Zhenya Huang , Jiayu Liu , Zirui Liu , Yu Su , Hongbin Pei This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords LLMagentsself-evolutionmemory-parametercoordinationknowledgevolatilitytask-awareroutinganti-recitationstage-awarescheduling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

LLM agents in the wild face changing APIs and user demands, and they can improve from feedback two ways: by editing external memories (the harness) or by updating their own weights. This paper argues those channels are complementary and should be coordinated rather than chosen. It presents COVE, which routes each task to the channel that matches its knowledge structure, switches channels when performance plateaus or cold-starts, and uses volatility labels plus an anti-recitation penalty to keep fragile interface names out of the weights. On coding, theorem proving, QA, and math benchmarks, COVE beats both single-channel variants and the two baseline paradigms, and it does so with 86% fewer parametric training tokens. The strongest gains appear on tasks the router marks 'hybrid', where both channels are active.

What carries the argument

Knowledge volatility as the organizing criterion. The paper defines three labels — volatile (API names, schemas), stable (proof tactics, reasoning patterns), strategic (debugging plans) — and makes them the basis of the router's channel choice and of an anti-recitation reward that subtracts a penalty when the model calls a volatile name absent from the current context. This reward is what keeps volatile knowledge in the harness.

What would settle it

Measure the router's decisions against tasks with known optimal channels (e.g., synthetic tasks with injected volatility), or replace router choices with random channel assignment and check whether the hybrid-subset advantage and the 86% token savings survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an agent's self-evolution should be driven by the volatility and reuse structure of the knowledge in each piece of feedback. COVE instantiates this as three mechanisms: a Task-aware Router that decides, from the task description plus execution feedback, whether a task should be learned through the harness (memory), through parameters, or both; a Stage-aware Scheduler that starts harness exploration and triggers parametric training only on plateau, enough data, or cold-start failure; and KnowledgePO, which labels memories as volatile/stable/strategic, wraps volatile entries so the model reads current interfaces instead of reciting old ones, and releases internalized

Load-bearing premise

The Task-aware Router's channel assignments are reliable, but the paper does not report router accuracy on a labeled validation set; if the judge frequently sends volatile tasks to the parametric channel or stable tasks to the harness, coordination gains and token savings shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • COVE's hybrid subset (24.1% vs 21.3% parametric-only) suggests tasks that engage both channels are where coordination pays.
  • The 86% training-token reduction implies selective routing can make self-evolution much cheaper while improving robustness.
  • The anti-recitation treatment preserves API-call correctness after renaming (92.5% vs 54.0%), implying volatile interface knowledge should never enter weights.
  • Stage-aware scheduling (plateau, data sufficiency, cold-start) replaces fixed training schedules and can be applied to other agent-training pipelines.
  • Treating feedback as heterogeneous knowledge rather than uniform training data is a general design principle for self-evolving agents.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The router is evaluated only on router-selected instances; an editorial inference is that the hybrid gain might shrink if hybrid routing errors are measured against a labeled channel-assignment ground truth.
  • The volatility labels currently come from a prompted judge; one could extend COVE by predicting volatility from historical revision statistics alone, which the paper partially does by promoting repeatedly revised entries.
  • The same coordination could apply to knowledge stored in code libraries and documentation, where version-sensitive surfaces are automatically volatile.
  • A natural test is scaling: as the base model gets stronger, the share of tasks routed to the parametric channel might drop, suggesting the framework also serves as a diagnostic of model competence.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes COVE, a framework for LLM-agent self-evolution that coordinates an external memory/harness channel with a parametric fine-tuning channel. COVE uses a Task-aware Router to assign tasks to harness-only, parametric-candidate, or hybrid processing; a Stage-aware Scheduler to decide when to trigger parametric updates based on plateau, data sufficiency, and cold-start conditions; and KnowledgePO, a dual-modal knowledge-optimization scheme that labels knowledge as volatile/stable/strategic, applies an anti-recitation reward to prevent volatile interface knowledge from being memorized, and releases stable memories from online retrieval after internalization. The empirical evaluation compares COVE against Evo-Memory, Self-Challenging, and channel-only ablations on five benchmarks (Lean4, APPS, TableQA, HotpotQA, MATH), reporting success rates and amortized per-instance training-token costs. The main claimed result is that COVE outperforms single-channel strategies and achieves lower parametric-training cost, with the strongest coordination evidence on a router-selected hybrid subset (24.1% vs. 21.3% for Parametric-only).

Significance. The coordination question is timely and the proposed design is well motivated. The diagnostic analyses in Section 3, particularly the API-renaming result in Table 1 and the Lean error-type analysis in Figure 3, are useful and give concrete evidence for the volatility/complementarity story. The anti-recitation reward is a plausible mechanism for preventing parametric internalization of unstable interface knowledge, and the memory-release idea addresses a real weakness of ever-growing memory systems. If the central empirical claims were supported by stronger statistical evidence and by a validated router, the paper would constitute a meaningful step toward principled hybrid self-evolution. The paper also provides a token-accounting protocol (Appendix A), which is commendable transparency even though the protocol itself raises questions.

major comments (5)
  1. [§5.2, Table 2] The abstract and Section 5.2 state that COVE 'outperforms single-channel evolution strategies,' but the reported differences are small on four of five tasks: Lean4 7.0 vs. 6.2, APPS 33.4 vs. 33.1, HotpotQA 69.6 vs. 69.4, MATH 91.7 vs. 91.6. No error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported anywhere in the paper. Without repeated runs or statistical testing, the 'outperforms' claim is not established for these margins. Please provide variance estimates or significance tests, or soften the claim to 'competitive with occasional gains.'
  2. [§5.3, Table 3 and footnote 1] The router is load-bearing for both the coordination claim and the efficiency claim, yet its accuracy is never measured. Footnote 1 reports only cross-backbone consistency (>95% agreement among Qwen3-8B, GPT-4o-mini, DeepSeek-v3.2), which does not establish correctness; consistent judges can share systematic biases. No labeled routing-validation set or confusion-matrix analysis is reported. In addition, Table 3 shows Random-Route reaches 62.7 vs. Ours 65.0, a 2.3-point gap, which suggests that routing decisions have only a modest effect on average performance in this ablation. Provide a labeled evaluation of router decisions (e.g., against human/rule-based labels on a held-out sample) and report routing accuracy per channel.
  3. [§5.2, Hybrid column] The strongest evidence for the benefit of coordination is the Hybrid column in Table 2: COVE's 24.1% vs. Parametric-only's 21.3%. This subset is constructed by taking instances 'that the router classifies as hybrid.' Measuring a method on a subset selected by its own router confounds routing quality with downstream performance; the 24.1% figure is not an independent test of the coordination hypothesis. Please evaluate the hybrid mechanism on a pre-defined held-out set of tasks that are known to require both memory and parametric competence, or report the full-task success and the router's precision/recall for hybrid assignment.
  4. [Appendix A and Table 2/Table 3] The headline efficiency claim (86% fewer training tokens) rests on an accounting model in which train_tokens = n_param × 14100 and train_steps = n_param × 0.125 for the routing analysis. These constants are presented without derivation, measurement, or sensitivity analysis. Since Self-Challenging is charged a flat 28.3K tokens per task and the harness channel is free, the reported token savings depend on assumptions that favor the selective router. Please provide the measured or derived basis for the 14100-token and 0.125-step constants, report the variance in completion lengths, and run a sensitivity analysis over the constants to show that the qualitative efficiency conclusion is robust.
  5. [§4.4.2] Memory release is a stated component of KnowledgePO, but no experiment evaluates it: there is no measurement of how many memories were released, the A/B threshold used, or the effect on downstream task performance or context cost. If the release mechanism is intended as a contribution, it needs direct evaluation; otherwise it should be framed as a design choice rather than a validated component.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 5] The figure contains the typo 'Anti-Recitation Rward' (should be 'Reward'). Also, the figure is dense; consider enlarging the router/scheduler text or providing a separate detailed diagram.
  2. [§4.2] The channel labels 'harness_only', 'parametric_candidate', and 'hybrid' are sometimes rendered with underscores and sometimes in prose; unify the notation.
  3. [Table 2] The table header for 'Hybrid' is formatted as 'Hybrid Avg. Tok.' and the Avg. Tok. column appears to be merged with the last numeric column. Separating the 'Hybrid Succ.' column from 'Avg. Tok.' would improve readability.
  4. [Appendix A] The phrase 'training-set-independent manner' is ambiguous: the model uses a per-task constant anchored to 'measured GRPO completion length' but the exact measurement is not described. Clarify which runs produced the 14100-token constant.
  5. [References] Several preprints are dated 2026 (e.g., [2], [28]) and the arXiv IDs are not provided for all; please verify the citations and add arXiv/DOI identifiers where available.
  6. [§5.1] The paper says 'we also include two ablation variants' but then lists Harness-only and Parametric-only as baselines in Table 2; clarify which comparisons are baselines versus ablations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: core comparisons are measured on held-out benchmarks; the few self-referential elements (hybrid subset, token-accounting model) are conditional evaluations or stated accounting conventions, not inputs that force the claimed outcomes.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain: (1) the motivating analysis in Section 3 uses diagnostics to justify channel coordination, but the final claims are not derived from those diagnostics; (2) the router, scheduler, and KnowledgePO components are evaluated on held-out splits of MiniF2F, APPS, WikiTableQuestions, HotpotQA, and MATH, so the main success-rate numbers are independent of the method's own definitions; (3) the only self-referential elements are the hybrid-column analysis in Table 2, where the test subset is selected by COVE's own router, and the token-accounting model in Appendix A, where parametric cost is modeled as n_param times a constant. Both are conditional or accounting statements: the hybrid success rates are measured, not constructed, and the token savings follow from the stated cost model rather than from a fitted parameter disguised as a prediction. The footnote in Section 5.3 reports cross-backbone consistency (>95%) but not router accuracy; this is a validity limitation, not circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem appears. I therefore find no step in which a prediction reduces to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, forces, or conserved quantities; the framework components (router, scheduler, KnowledgePO) are software and algorithmic constructs, not entities requiring independent evidence. The model does, however, rely on several domain assumptions and unstated hyperparameter choices that are catalogued above.

free parameters (8)
  • Plateau window w = not reported
    Stage-aware scheduler triggers when improvement over w episodes is below epsilon; numeric value not given.
  • Plateau threshold epsilon = not reported
    Tolerance for performance improvement; not specified.
  • Data sufficiency threshold N = not reported
    Minimum number of high-quality trajectories to trigger training; not specified.
  • Cold-start threshold tau_c = not reported
    Success-rate threshold over first k tasks; not specified.
  • Anti-recitation penalty weight lambda = not reported
    Scalar penalty for stale volatile-name calls; not specified.
  • Per-instance training token constant = 14,100 tokens
    Estimated from measured GRPO completion length in Appendix A; used to compute token savings.
  • Per-instance training step constant = 0.125 steps
    Estimated in Appendix A; used in routing analysis.
  • Memory retrieval top-k = not reported
    Number of memory entries injected during rollout, from Section 4.4.1 'top-k'; k not given.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Volatile knowledge should reside in external memory and be protected from parameter internalization; stable knowledge should be internalized.
    Central premise of KnowledgePO, introduced in Section 3.2 and operationalized in Section 4.4; not derived.
  • domain assumption Plateau-triggered parametric updates outperform always-on parametric training and harness-only evolution.
    Claimed from the stage-aligned comparison in Figure 4, Section 3.1; used to justify Stage-aware Scheduler.
  • domain assumption The harness channel incurs zero training-token cost.
    Token accounting defines harness memory as free (Appendix A); this assumption underlies the token-reduction claims.
  • domain assumption A constrained judge can label volatility and routing decisions reliably.
    Router and volatility labels are produced by an LLM judge (Sections 4.2, 4.4.1); reliability is assumed, with only a cross-backbone consistency check reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning What to Remember and What to Internalize in LLM Self-Evolution via Adaptive Memory-Parameter Coordination." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P6LSS47W

@misc{pith2026260801234,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning What to Remember and What to Internalize in LLM Self-Evolution via Adaptive Memory-Parameter Coordination},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P6LSS47W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01234}
}
read the original abstract

Large language model agents increasingly operate in dynamic environments where tool interfaces, APIs, and user requirements change after deployment. Existing self-evolution methods mainly follow two paradigms: harness-based approaches, which externalize feedback into editable memories or skills for rapid adaptation, and parameter-based approaches, which internalize experience into model parameters for deeper capability improvement. However, using either mechanism alone creates a trade-off between flexibility and performance. This paper asks how an agent can coordinate both channels to achieve robust self-evolution. We present COVE, a unified agent self-evolution framework that combines harness-based and parameter-based learning through task-aware routing, stage-aware scheduling, and knowledge optimization. Through this design, COVE treats self-evolution not as indiscriminate accumulation of experience, but as a coordinated process that matches tasks and knowledge types to appropriate learning mechanisms. Experiments across multiple task categories show that COVE outperforms single-channel evolution strategies, demonstrating more robust and efficient improvement under changing environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01234 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Harness-based evolution keeps editable memories or skills, while parameter-based evolution updates model weights. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Lean harness evolution: more stored or retrieved [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Stage-aligned comparison: plateau-triggered up [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview of COVE. Given task feedback, the task-aware router selects an evolution channel, the stage-aware scheduler [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Routing Pareto: COVE preserves most Always-Both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: API-renaming analysis: anti-recitation preserves API correctness and shifts attention toward current instructions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Router and API-perturbation cases: COVE separates parametric from harness updates and follows renamed APIs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Floren- cia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Luke Bailey, Kaiyue Wen, Kefan Dong, Tatsunori Hashimoto, and Tengyu Ma

    work page

  3. [3]

    Jinyuan Fang, Yanwen Peng, Xi Zhang, Yingxu Wang, Xinhao Yi, Guibin Zhang, Yi Xu, Bin Wu, Siwei Liu, Zihao Li, et al . 2025. A comprehensive survey of self-evolving ai agents: A new paradigm bridging foundation models and lifelong agentic systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.07407(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Weibo Gao, Qi Liu, Linan Yue, Fangzhou Yao, Rui Lv, Zheng Zhang, Hao Wang, and Zhenya Huang. 2025. Agent4edu: Generating learner response data by generative agents for intelligent education systems. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 39. 23923–23932

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Dan Hendrycks, Steven Basart, Saurav Kadavath, Mantas Mazeika, Akul Arora, Ethan Guo, Collin Burns, Samir Puranik, Horace He, Dawn Song, et al. 2021. Mea- suring coding challenge competence with apps.arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.09938 (2021)

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874(2021)

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Mengkang Hu, Pu Zhao, Can Xu, Qingfeng Sun, Jian-Guang Lou, Qingwei Lin, Ping Luo, and Saravan Rajmohan. 2025. Agentgen: Enhancing planning abilities for large language model based agent via environment and task generation. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining V. 1. 496–507

    2025

  8. [8]

    Jie Huang, Xinyun Chen, Swaroop Mishra, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Adams Yu, Xinying Song, and Denny Zhou. 2024. Large language models cannot self-correct reasoning yet. InInternational conference on learning representations, Vol. 2024. 32808–32824

    work page 2024

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Kaixiang Lin, Renyu Zhao, Zhe Xu, and Jiayu Zhou. 2018. Efficient large-scale fleet management via multi-agent deep reinforcement learning. InProceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining. 1774–1783

    2018

  2. [10]

    Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Cheng- gang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, et al. 2024. Deepseek-v3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Liangbo Ning, Ziran Liang, Zhuohang Jiang, Haohao Qu, Yujuan Ding, Wenqi Fan, Xiao-yong Wei, Shanru Lin, Hui Liu, Philip S Yu, et al. 2025. A survey of webagents: Towards next-generation ai agents for web automation with large foundation models. InProceedings of the 31st ACM S...

    2025

  4. [12]

    Panupong Pasupat and Percy Liang. 2015. Compositional semantic parsing on semi-structured tables. InProceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long...

    2015

  5. [13]

    Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Eric Hambro, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools.Advances in neural information processing systems36 (2023), 68539–68551

    2023

  6. [14]

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov

  7. [15]

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. 2023. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. Advances in neural information processing systems36 (2023), 8634–8652

    2023

  8. [16]

    Zeyi Sun, Ziyu Liu, Yuhang Zang, Yuhang Cao, Xiaoyi Dong, Tong Wu, Dahua Lin, and Jiaqi Wang. 2025. Seagent: Self-evolving computer use agent with autonomous learning from experience.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.04700(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Mandlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. 2023. Voyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Tianxin Wei, Noveen Sachdeva, Benjamin Coleman, Zhankui He, Yuanchen Bei, Xuying Ning, Mengting Ai, Yunzhe Li, Jingrui He, Ed H Chi, et al . 2025. Evo- memory: Benchmarking llm agent test-time learning with self-evolving memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.20857(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Can Xu, Qingfeng Sun, Kai Zheng, Xiubo Geng, Pu Zhao, Jiazhan Feng, Chongyang Tao, Qingwei Lin, and Daxin Jiang. 2024. WizardLM: Empowering large pre-trained language models to follow complex instructions. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, Vol. 2024. 30745–30766

    2024

  12. [20]

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. 2025. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D Manning. 2018. HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. InProceedings of the 2018 conference on empirical methods in natural language p...

    2018

  14. [22]

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2023. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In11th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Heng Yu, Junfeng Kang, Rui Li, Qi Liu, Liyang He, Zhenya Huang, Shuanghong Shen, and Junyu Lu. 2025. CA-GAR: Context-Aware Alignment of LLM Gener- ation for Document Retrieval. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025. 5836–5849

    2025

  16. [24]

    Yunpeng Zhai, Shuchang Tao, Cheng Chen, Anni Zou, Ziqian Chen, Qingxu Fu, Shinji Mai, Li Yu, Jiaji Deng, Zouying Cao, et al. 2025. Agentevolver: Towards efficient self-evolving agent system.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.10395(2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Yi Zhan, Qi Liu, Weibo Gao, Zheng Zhang, Tianfu Wang, Shuanghong Shen, Junyu Lu, and Zhenya Huang. 2025. Coderagent: Simulating student behavior for personalized programming learning with large language models. InProceedings of the Thirty-Fourth International Joint Conference ...

    2025

  18. [26]

    Wentao Zhang, Lingxuan Zhao, Haochong Xia, Shuo Sun, Jiaze Sun, Molei Qin, Xinyi Li, Yuqing Zhao, Yilei Zhao, Xinyu Cai, et al. 2024. A multimodal founda- tion agent for financial trading: Tool-augmented, diversified, and generalist. In Proceedings of the 30th acm sigkdd confe...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Kunhao Zheng, Jesse Michael Han, and Stanislas Polu. 2021. Minif2f: a cross- system benchmark for formal olympiad-level mathematics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.00110(2021)

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Yifei Zhou, Sergey Levine, Jason Weston, Xian Li, and Sainbayar Sukhbaatar

  21. [31]

    Self-challenging language model agents.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems38 (2026), 113959–113991. A Token Accounting For Table 2, the reported token cost is the number of tokens con- sumed to train the corresponding model, amortized over the eval- uation instan...

    2026

  22. [2017]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  23. [2026]

    Scaling self-play with self-guidance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.20209(2026)

    2026 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.