Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Agent Memory Distillation: Empowering Small LLM Agents with Hierarchical Teacher Memory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A three-layer teacher memory lifts small agents by up to 27 points.

desk verdict Training-free hierarchical teacher-memory transfer is a real and useful contribution, with large gains on tool-use benchmarks, but the paper's 'consistent' claim is undercut by missing baselines and a leakage control that runs only on one student model. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07169 v1 pith:RCTIUZ37 submitted 2026-08-07 cs.AI cs.LG

Taeil Kim , Kangsan Kim , Sung Ju Hwang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.LG
keywords agentmemorydistillationhierarchicalsmalllanguagemodelagentstool-usebenchmarkstraining-freeknowledgetransferteacher-studentcapabilitygapretrievalLLM
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

The paper argues that small language-model agents fail to benefit from a large teacher's experience not for lack of good demonstrations but because the demonstrations arrive at the wrong granularity. It proposes Agent Memory Distillation (AMD), a training-free method that turns successful teacher trajectories into three memory layers—task-level workflow plans, subtask-level executable examples, and per-function call guides—and injects the first two before a task starts and the third only after a tool call fails. On three tool-use benchmarks and four 4B–8B student models, AMD reports average accuracy gains of 27.2, 11.2, and 3.4 percentage points over zero-shot, and some students reach or exceed the teacher's accuracy. The significance of the claim is that small agents could become substantially more competent tool users using only retrieved memories, with no parameter updates.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a three-level memory store built offline from the teacher's successful trajectories and injected at different times. Workflow memory is a natural-language task strategy with typed placeholders, retrieved by the task instruction and prepended to the system prompt. Subtask memory is a set of executable code segments with labels and descriptions, retrieved by the student's own subtask decomposition and also injected upfront. Function memory is a per-function collection of concrete call examples, plus schemas where available, indexed by function name and appended only when the student's tool call returns an error. The hierarchy is designed so each level matches a layer of the student's competence, and the paper's case study shows a cascade where each added layer fixes the failure the previous configuration hits.

What would settle it

Run the self-excluded retrieval protocol, in which each task may retrieve only memory distilled from other tasks, on Gemma4-E4B, Qwen3-8B, and Llama3.1-8B across AppWorld and BFCL V3. If the AMD gains over zero-shot largely disappear, the claim that the gains come from reusable distilled knowledge would be falsified; if they persist, the claim survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that hierarchical memory distills teacher knowledge that small students can actually execute, whereas flat teacher memory cannot. The paper's evidence is that AMD's full configuration beats zero-shot on all four students across AppWorld, BFCL V3, and ToolSandbox, while three memory baselines—ReasoningBank, MemP, and SASM—give inconsistent gains and sometimes hurt. The ablations identify Subtask memory as the largest contributor, particularly on AppWorld, and the work also shows that students are not merely replaying teacher trajectories, since some students surpass the teacher's average accuracy. The hierarchy is what does the work: workflow insight fixes planning, subtask examples fix execution, and function examples fix API misuse.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the gains reflect transferable knowledge assumes each evaluation task never retrieves the teacher memory built from that same task; that safeguard is only reported for Qwen3-4B, so the other students' headline gains might partly reflect reading the teacher's own solution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Small models between 4B and 8B can reach teacher-level accuracy on complex tool-use benchmarks without any fine-tuning, if they receive memories built from the teacher's successful runs.
  • Flat or single-granularity memory transfer is unreliable; structure, not volume, is what makes teacher experience usable by smaller students.
  • The optimal representation depends on granularity: natural language for planning, executable code for subtask and function guidance.
  • Retrieval should be conservative: k=1 is near-optimal, and adding more memory entries degrades small-student performance.
  • Student turn counts drop toward the teacher's, so the method also improves interaction efficiency, not just final accuracy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the hierarchy hypothesis is to apply AMD to open-ended coding tasks, where the action space is not a fixed set of functions; the paper lists this as an unverified setting and would likely need an additional memory layer for generated code.
  • The teacher-student compatibility finding suggests memory distillation should be treated as a matching problem: select a teacher whose style is comprehensible to the student rather than simply the most accurate teacher.
  • Because the memory store is frozen after offline construction, an online extension where the student's own successful trajectories gradually update the memory is a natural way to adapt to test-time distribution shift.
  • The k=1 result points toward a capacity-aware memory budget: for a given student scale there is likely an optimal number of injected memories, and future work could predict that budget from model size.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Agent Memory Distillation (AMD), a training-free framework that transfers knowledge from a large teacher agent to small student agents through hierarchically organized memory: Workflow memory (task-level strategy), Subtask memory (concrete behavioral segments), and Function memory (per-function usage examples). Workflow and Subtask memories are injected proactively at the start of a task, while Function memory is retrieved reactively on tool-calling errors. The method is evaluated on AppWorld, BFCL V3, and ToolSandbox with GPT-5-mini as the teacher and four student models of 4B–8B parameters. The authors report average accuracy gains of 27.2, 11.2, and 3.4 percentage points over zero-shot on the three benchmarks, consistent gains over memory-based baselines, and cases where students match or exceed the teacher. Ablations show Subtask memory contributes the largest gains, and analyses examine teacher choice, student scale, retrieval count, and memory representation.

Significance. If the claims hold, AMD is a practical and useful contribution: it improves small-agent tool use without additional training, with a clear memory design and a plausible explanation for why naive teacher-memory transfer fails. The paper includes several strengths that should be acknowledged: ablation studies across memory components and representations, a careful case study illustrating the cascading effect of the three memory types, repeated-run variance measurements for one student model, and an explicit disjoint-evaluation experiment in Appendix B.3 that addresses a natural leakage concern. These elements make the empirical claims more credible than a bare accuracy table. However, the scope of the key evidence is narrower than the headline claims, because the leakage control and the baselines are only reported for a subset of student models.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B.3, Table 6] The disjoint-evaluation protocols (cross-split and self-excluded retrieval) are run only with Qwen3-4B as the student. This is the only evidence that the reported gains are not partly due to a task retrieving its own teacher solution from memory. The abstract and Section 4.2 claim consistent gains across all four student models and interpret the teacher-surpassing results as evidence that the student is 'not merely imitating' teacher trajectories. Without self-excluded or cross-split evidence for Gemma4-E4B, Qwen3-8B, and Llama3.1-8B, the central generalization claim is not fully supported. I request either extending the disjoint protocols to the remaining student models or explicitly restricting the leakage-free claim to Qwen3-4B.
  2. [Table 1, Section 4.2] ReasoningBank, MemP, and SASM results are reported only for Qwen3-4B and Gemma4-E4B. Section 4.2 states that AMD 'consistently outperforms all baselines in every model and benchmark,' but the table contains no baseline rows for Qwen3-8B or Llama3.1-8B. This makes the claim that AMD beats all memory baselines across all students unsupported as presented. Please add the missing baseline results or revise the claim to the models for which comparisons exist.
  3. [Section 4.2, 'Matching and Surpassing the Teacher'] The claim that students surpass the teacher and therefore are 'not merely imitating teacher trajectories' rests on point estimates whose differences are small relative to the reported run-to-run variance. For example, Qwen3-4B on AppWorld scores 49.40 versus the teacher's 50.00, and Qwen3-4B on BFCL V3 scores 38.50 versus 36.50. Table 5 reports standard deviations of roughly 0.6–0.9 percentage points for Qwen3-4B, so these differences may not be statistically meaningful. Since Table 5 covers only Qwen3-4B, the paper should either provide repeated-run statistics for the other students or soften the 'not merely imitating' interpretation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1, Implementation Details] The similarity threshold δ is mentioned in Section 3.3 and Algorithm 1, but its value is never reported. Please state the chosen threshold or explain how it was set.
  2. [Table 2] The ablation study covers only AppWorld and BFCL V3, not ToolSandbox. Given that ToolSandbox gains are much smaller, reporting at least the WF/ST/FN ablation for ToolSandbox would strengthen the claim that the component ordering holds across benchmarks.
  3. [Figure 3] Interaction-step results are shown only for Qwen3-4B and Gemma4-E4B. The text claims AMD reduces the turn gap generally, but no step counts are provided for Qwen3-8B or Llama3.1-8B.
  4. [Section 5.2, Table 3] The observation that GPT-5-mini transfers better than DeepSeek V4 Pro to Qwen3-4B despite lower teacher accuracy is attributed to teacher–student compatibility, but no quantitative compatibility measure is provided. A brief explanation of what compatibility means in this context would help.
  5. [Limitations] The Limitations section appropriately acknowledges the text-only, frozen-memory scope and the open problem of adaptive teacher selection; these caveats are consistent with the reported experiments and should be kept in the final version.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Same-task memory leakage is controlled only for Qwen3-4B, so the headline gains for the other three students may partly reduce to retrieving each task's own teacher solution.

  1. other [Appendix B.3 (Robustness of Distilled Memory under Disjoint Evaluation); main protocol in Section 3.1; results in Abstract and Table 1]
    "In our main experiments, memory is distilled and applied within the same benchmark. This raises a natural question about whether the observed gains reflect the real utility of the distilled memory, or whether a task could simply be benefiting from memory derived from the same task. ... All experiments in this section use Qwen3-4B as the student model."

    Section 3.1 defines the protocol over a single task set S: 'we first run πT on S to collect a set of teacher trajectories DT ... which is subsequently transferred to πS. At inference time, πS retrieves relevant memories from M to guide its reasoning on S.' Thus every evaluation task has its own teacher solution in M unless explicitly excluded. The only exclusion protocol is Appendix B.3, and it is run only for Qwen3-4B ('All experiments in this section use Qwen3-4B as the student model'). Hence the AppWorld and BFCL V3 gains reported for Gemma4-E4B, Qwen3-8B, and Llama3.1-8B are produced under a store that may contain each task's own solution; those results are not yet shown to be independent of same-task retrieval.

full rationale

This paper has no mathematical derivation or fitted constant whose output is definitionally its input; the method is an empirical memory-retrieval pipeline. The main potential circularity is at the protocol level: teacher trajectories are collected on the same task set S that is later used for evaluation, so the memory store can contain the exact solution to a test task. The authors themselves identify this risk in Appendix B.3 and run cross-split and self-excluded-retrieval controls, which is the right way to break the circle. However, those controls are presented only for Qwen3-4B, while the headline claim of consistent gains across four student models is made for all four. For Gemma4-E4B, Qwen3-8B, and Llama3.1-8B, no disjoint-evaluation evidence is given, so the reported improvements could, by construction of the memory store, reflect retrieval of each task's own teacher solution rather than transferable distilled knowledge. The self-citations to prior work by the same group (Agent Distillation, Memory Transfer Learning) are used as baselines or related work and are not load-bearing, so they do not raise the score. Overall, the central mechanism has independent support for Qwen3-4B, but the generality claim for the other students remains partially vulnerable to same-task leakage, giving a moderate circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical or mathematical entities; the three memory types are algorithmic stores. The free parameters are retrieval and decomposition hyperparameters, not physical constants. The central result is empirical rather than derived, so the key axioms are domain assumptions about transferability of teacher memories, retrieval quality, and faithful baseline adaptation.

free parameters (3)
  • retrieval count k = 1
    Top-1 retrieval for all memory types. Selected because Section 5.4 shows k=1 is near-optimal on AppWorld, then applied to all benchmarks without a held-out validation split.
  • similarity threshold delta = not reported
    Memories below this cosine-similarity threshold are discarded, per Section 3.3 and Algorithm 1, but the numeric value is never given. It changes which memories are injected.
  • max subtasks = 6
    Both student task decomposition and teacher trajectory segmentation are capped at six subtask labels, which directly affects what content is retrieved and injected.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Successful teacher trajectories, abstracted with typed placeholders, contain reusable procedural knowledge for held-out tasks at workflow, subtask, and function levels.
    Section 3.2 constructs all memory from the successful subset of teacher trajectories and assumes this transfers to new tasks. Appendix B.3 tests this for only Qwen3-4B.
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity in a general text-embedding model ranks memories by usefulness for a small student agent.
    Section 3.3 relies on embedding-based retrieval with top-k selection. The only retrieval-quality analysis is the k sweep on AppWorld in Section 5.4.
  • domain assumption Top-1 injection is sufficient, and additional memories hurt small students.
    Section 5.4 shows performance degrades for larger k on AppWorld. The paper assumes this behavior holds across all benchmarks and all student models.
  • domain assumption The three baselines (ReasoningBank, MemP, SASM) are faithfully adapted to the teacher-to-student transfer setting.
    Section 4.1 states that memory is generated from the same teacher trajectories and applied following each method's protocol, but no adaptation code or prompts are shown. Unfair adaptation would skew the comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Agent Memory Distillation: Empowering Small LLM Agents with Hierarchical Teacher Memory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RCTIUZ37

@misc{pith2026260807169,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Agent Memory Distillation: Empowering Small LLM Agents with Hierarchical Teacher Memory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RCTIUZ37}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07169}
}
read the original abstract

Memory systems have shown promise for improving agent performance, but their potential remains largely unexplored for small language models, which struggle to generate sufficient successful trajectories on their own. We propose Agent Memory Distillation (AMD), a training-free framework that transfers structured knowledge from a large teacher agent to a small student agent through hierarchical memory. AMD constructs three complementary memory types from successful teacher trajectories: Workflow memory encodes task-level strategies, Subtask memory provides concrete behavioral examples at an intermediate granularity, and Function memory captures per-function calling conventions and common pitfalls. Workflow and Subtask memories are injected proactively at the start of each task, while Function memory is retrieved reactively upon tool-calling errors. We evaluate AMD on three tool-use benchmarks using four student models (4B-8B parameters) with GPT-5-mini as the teacher, achieving average accuracy gains of 27.2%p, 11.2%p, and 3.4%p on AppWorld, BFCL V3, and ToolSandbox, while consistently outperforming existing memory-based baselines. Further analysis shows that Subtask memory contributes the largest gains, teacher effectiveness depends on both teacher capability and student compatibility, and 4B-sized students benefit most from AMD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07169 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Motivation, Concept, and Results of AMD. (A) Student-generated memory is limited by low task success rates. (B) Naive teacher memory transfer yields marginal gains due to the capability gap. (C) AMD transfers hierarchical memories spanning task, subtask, and function levels, making teacher knowledge acces￾sible to small students. (D) AMD achieves significant accuracy gains across three benchmarks. as APIs and predef… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Hierarchical Memory Generation and Injection in AMD. (Left) The teacher agent generates three types of memory from successful trajectories. (Right) At inference time, Workflow and Subtask memories are proactively injected into the system prompt, while Function memory is reactively retrieved upon tool-calling errors. where R(π S (s;M)) denotes the task success re￾ward obtained by π S on task s given memory M. 3.2 Hie… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Interaction steps on two benchmarks. AMD brings the student’s turn count closer to the teacher’s, particularly where the zero-shot gap is large. 8B (51.79%) surpass GPT-5-mini performance (50.00%) with AMD while Qwen3-4B shows com￾parable performance (49.40%) with the teacher. Moreover, on BFCL V3, three students outperform the teacher, and this advantage persists in aggregate: Gemma4-E4B (40.63%) and Qwen3-8B (40.9… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of student model size on AMD per￾formance. Accuracy increases with model size, while accuracy gain peaks at 4B. dent performance (49.40%), outperforming even DeepSeek V4 Pro (38.10%) despite its substantially lower teacher accuracy. These results indicate that A…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of retrieval count k on AMD perfor￾mance. Accuracy at k=1 is near-optimal for all memory types, and increasing k generally degrades performance. 5.4 Effect of Retrieval Count In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cascading Effect of Each Memory Type 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Case Study for Workflow Memory 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Case Study for Subtask Memory 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Case Study for Function Memory 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Workflow Memory Example 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Sub-task Memory Example 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Function Memory Example 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Workflow Memory Build Prompt for AppWorld Tasks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Sub-task Memory Segmentation Prompt for AppWorld Tasks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Student Agent Sub-task Decompose Prompt for AppWorld Tasks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Memory Transfer Learning: How Memories are Transferred Across Domains in Coding Agents

    Memory Transfer Learning: How Memories are Transferred Across Domains in Coding Agents , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.14004 , year=

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25140 , year=

    Reasoningbank: Scaling agent self-evolving with reasoning memory , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25140 , year=

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07429 , year=

    Agent workflow memory , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07429 , year=

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

    Expel: Llm agents are experiential learners , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

  5. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03192 , year=

    Memrl: Self-evolving agents via runtime reinforcement learning on episodic memory , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03192 , year=

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    A-mem: Agentic memory for llm agents , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  7. [7]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.06433 , year=

    Memp: Exploring agent procedural memory , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.06433 , year=

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.22862 , year=

    The evolution of tool use in llm agents: From single-tool call to multi-tool orchestration , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.22862 , year=

    arXiv

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.07670 , year=

    Memory for autonomous llm agents: Mechanisms, evaluation, and emerging frontiers , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.07670 , year=

  2. [10]

    Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    Reflectool: Towards reflection-aware tool-augmented clinical agents , author=. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

  3. [11]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.07800 , year=

    From experience to strategy: Empowering llm agents with trainable graph memory , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.07800 , year=

  4. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15965 , year=

    From human memory to ai memory: A survey on memory mechanisms in the era of llms , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15965 , year=

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    2026 , publisher=

    From Storage to Experience: A Survey on the Evolution of LLM Agent Memory Mechanisms , author=. 2026 , publisher=

    2026

  6. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.10304 , year=

    Sample-Efficient Online Learning in LM Agents via Hindsight Trajectory Rewriting , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.10304 , year=

  7. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.24639 , year=

    Experiential reflective learning for self-improving llm agents , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.24639 , year=

  8. [16]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.21357 , year=

    AgentHER: Hindsight Experience Replay for LLM Agent Trajectory Relabeling , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.21357 , year=

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531 , year=

    Distilling the knowledge in a neural network , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531 , year=

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Distilling llm agent into small models with retrieval and code tools , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  11. [19]

    Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume=

    Improved knowledge distillation via teacher assistant , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume=

  12. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.07485 , year=

    Reducing the teacher-student gap via spherical knowledge distillation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.07485 , year=

    2010 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Chi and Tatsunori Hashimoto and Oriol Vinyals and Percy Liang and Jeff Dean and William Fedus , title =

    Jason Wei and Yi Tay and Rishi Bommasani and Colin Raffel and Barret Zoph and Sebastian Borgeaud and Dani Yogatama and Maarten Bosma and Denny Zhou and Donald Metzler and Ed H. Chi and Tatsunori Hashimoto and Oriol Vinyals and Percy Liang and Jeff Dean and William Fedus , titl...

    2022

  14. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19874 , year=

    Is in-context learning sufficient for instruction following in llms? , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19874 , year=

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Proceedings of the 2024 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing , pages=

    Small llms are weak tool learners: A multi-llm agent , author=. Proceedings of the 2024 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing , pages=

    2024

  16. [24]

    Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    Appworld: A controllable world of apps and people for benchmarking interactive coding agents , author=. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

  17. [25]

    Forty-second International Conference on Machine Learning , year=

    The Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL): From Tool Use to Agentic Evaluation of Large Language Models , author=. Forty-second International Conference on Machine Learning , year=

  18. [26]

    2024 , eprint=

    ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilities , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  19. [27]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.21611 , year=

    Structurally Aligned Subtask-Level Memory for Software Engineering Agents , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.21611 , year=

  20. [28]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  21. [29]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.18746 , year=

    Memevolve: Meta-evolution of agent memory systems , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.18746 , year=

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

    Synapse: Trajectory-as-exemplar prompting with memory for computer control , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

  23. [31]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06229 , year=

    Agent kb: Leveraging cross-domain experience for agentic problem solving , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06229 , year=

  24. [32]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , year=

    Gpt-4 technical report , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , year=

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261 , year=

    Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capabilities , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261 , year=

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

    Minillm: Knowledge distillation of large language models , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

  27. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948 , year=

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948 , year=

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 , pages=

    Distilling step-by-step! outperforming larger language models with less training data and smaller model sizes , author=. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 , pages=

    2023

  29. [37]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108 , year=

    DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108 , year=

    1910 arXiv

  30. [38]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

    Speculative knowledge distillation: Bridging the teacher-student gap through interleaved sampling , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

  31. [39]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13820 , year=

    Structured agent distillation for large language model , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13820 , year=

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.14257 , year=

    From correction to mastery: Reinforced distillation of large language model agents , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.14257 , year=

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.14728 , year=

    Agentdistill: Training-free agent distillation with generalizable mcp boxes , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.14728 , year=

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388 , year=

    Qwen3 technical report , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388 , year=

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Gemma 4 E4B Instruct , year =

  36. [44]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , year=

    The llama 3 herd of models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , year=

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02810 , year=

    StateAct: Enhancing LLM Base Agents via Self-prompting and State-tracking , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02810 , year=

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.01375 , year=

    Fine-tuning with RAG for Improving LLM Learning of New Skills , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.01375 , year=

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.