Branch2Skill: Efficient Skill Evolution Through Reasoning Trees

Baosheng Yu; Haotian Zhang; Jiaxing Huang; Jiayan Qiu; Likang Xiao; Liu Liu; Quan Chen; Yanwei Ren

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 34 references

Branch2Skill: Efficient Skill Evolution Through Reasoning Trees

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One Monte Carlo tree search can produce dense stepwise supervision for a persistent agent skill, cutting evolution tokens by 73.2%.

desk verdict A genuinely new mechanism for turning MCTS trees into dense skill-update signals, with ablations that support the core idea, but the headline numbers rest on a small validation gate and single runs that could inflate the gains. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08677 v1 pith:HZXPYYE2 submitted 2026-08-09 cs.AI

Yanwei Ren , Haotian Zhang , Likang Xiao , Jiaxing Huang , Jiayan Qiu , Baosheng Yu , Quan Chen , Liu Liu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AI

keywords skillevolutionreasoningtreesMonteCarlotreesearchsiblingcontrastdensesupervisionvalidationgatingLLMagentsreusableskills

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

Branch2Skill aims to make skill evolution for large language model agents cheaper and more informative by deriving many local lessons from a single Monte Carlo tree search, rather than from individual rollouts. The paper's central claim is that comparing an elite reasoning path with sibling branches that share the same prefix isolates what to keep, revise, or avoid at each decision step, turning one tree into dense supervision. If this is right, a single round of search can supply several update signals, so agents improve with far fewer rollout-diagnosis-update cycles. Across six benchmarks and five target models, the method reports a 73.2% reduction in evolution tokens relative to its SkillOpt reproduction while increasing aggregate test gain from 117.8 to 128.7 percentage points. This matters because persistent skills could be refined from the byproducts of one failed attempt instead of many.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a stepwise reasoning tree built under a fixed Monte Carlo tree search budget (defaults: depth 6, three children per expansion, 40 iterations). PUCT selection scores a child by $Q(v) + c_{\mathrm{puct}} \frac{P(v|u)\sqrt{\max(1,N(u))}}{1+N(v)}$, balancing backed-up mean reward against exploration of less-visited branches. The defining contrast is the sibling set $B_d = \{S^j_d : \mathrm{pa}(S^j_d) = \mathrm{pa}(S^{i^\star_d}_d), j\neq i^\star_d\}$: every alternative in $B_d$ shares the exact reasoning prefix up to depth $d-1$, so the difference in downstream outcomes isolates the effect of the single decision at depth $d$. The skill model then condenses these local contrasts into APPEND, REPLACE, or DELETE edits, and the validation gate accepts a candidate only when no designated metric decreases.

What would settle it

Redraw the validation splits (or reseed the Monte Carlo tree search) several times, rerun the ten evolution steps, and compare the best-validation checkpoint's test gain: if the 73.2% token saving and the 9.3% gain advantage over SkillOpt do not persist, the validation gate is chasing noise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the temporary structure built by tree search—a set of reasoning branches sharing prefixes—is itself a reusable source of training signal for a persistent skill. Branch2Skill retains one elite path per problem, collects, at each depth, sibling nodes that share the same parent, and uses the downstream outcomes of those siblings to attribute success or failure to the decision at that depth. It then asks a skill model to consolidate evidence from several trees into a single candidate skill through APPEND, REPLACE, or DELETE operations. A candidate is accepted only if no designated validation metric decreases on a fixed set; otherwise the previous skill is restored. The reported result is that this protocol improves performance on every evaluated no-skill baseline and, with GPT-5.5 as target model, uses 73.2% fewer skill-evolution tokens than SkillOpt while increasing total gain by 9.3%.

Load-bearing premise

The gains rest on the assumption that a fixed validation set of 18 to 40 examples per benchmark is representative enough that ten rounds of keeping only nondecreasing validation scores select genuine skill improvements rather than noise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Skill evolution can run with many fewer rollouts: one tree supplies comparable supervision to several trajectory-diagnosis-update cycles.
The fixed validation gate prevents regressions, so every retained checkpoint is at least as good as the previous one on the designated metrics.
Skills learned from one target model transfer to other models and to out-of-domain benchmarks without further evolution, as shown on Omni-MATH.
Broader search (deeper trees, more children, more iterations) improves the resulting skill, because richer sibling sets yield more localized evidence.
Sibling evidence outperforms both single-path diagnosis and whole-tree evidence, so the shared-prefix structure is what carries the gain.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension is to replace the scalar self-assessed node scores with purely terminal outcomes; if the gains hold, the method no longer depends on the target model's ability to rate its own partial reasoning.
The same tree-to-evidence conversion could generate process-supervision data at near-zero marginal cost, since one search already contains correct and incorrect continuations under matched prefixes.
Because the validation gate is monotone, the method resembles safe hill-climbing in skill space; one could measure how sensitive the final skill is to the order in which training problems are presented.
The 4.07x gain per token suggests search budgets can be shifted from maximizing current-task accuracy to deliberately creating diagnostic branches, sacrificing some immediate performance for richer future supervision.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing to know: Branch2Skill is a new mechanism, not just a repackaging. The move is to take one MCTS reasoning tree and, at each depth on an elite path, compare the chosen step against same-prefix sibling branches, then distill those contrasts into edits to a persistent natural-language skill. That gives dense, localized supervision out of one search, and the ablations support the claim that the sibling evidence is what does the work.

The paper does several things well. The method is described concretely, with enough detail to reimplement. The ablations in Table 3 are informative: moving from single-path to sibling evidence gives large gains on LiveMath and SearchQA, and whole-tree evidence is worse, which argues for the shared-prefix contrast rather than just more information. The cross-model and cross-dataset transfer experiments are a plus. The related work is handled fairly; the self-citation to SIGMA is background, not load-bearing.

The soft spot is real and it is exactly where the reader points: the headline numbers depend on a validation gate over small fixed sets — 18 to 53 examples — with a best-checkpoint selection over ten update steps, and everything is a single run with no error bars. The componentwise nonregression rule in Eq. (3) is a weak filter at that sample size, and keeping the best-validation checkpoint invites selecting validation noise. So the 9.3% aggregate gain over SkillOpt is probably optimistic; I would not trust the exact magnitude until it is reproduced with seeds or at least with a less selection-heavy protocol. The 73.2% token reduction is less exposed, because token counts do not depend on validation performance, but it is only reported in aggregate, and the per-benchmark SkillOpt comparison would be easy to show. Code is promised but not out yet.

None of this makes the method incoherent, and the central claim — that shared-prefix sibling outcomes across depths are useful supervision for persistent skills — holds up as a mechanism. The risk is that the reported gain is inflated by checkpoint selection, not that the idea is wrong.

I would send this to peer review. The contribution is substantial enough to merit referee time, and the concerns are addressable: release code, report error bars or multiple seeds, show per-benchmark token counts against SkillOpt, and maybe reduce the role of best-checkpoint selection. I would cite this if I were working on skill evolution, and I'd bring it to a reading group.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. Branch2Skill proposes to convert a single MCTS reasoning tree into dense supervision for persistent skill evolution. For each training problem, a target model builds a reasoning tree under a PUCT-guided search budget; the method then selects an elite path, collects same-prefix sibling branches at each depth, and sends compact tree slices to a skill model that proposes APPEND, REPLACE, or DELETE edits. A componentwise nonregression validation gate either accepts the candidate skill or restores the previous one, and the checkpoint with the strongest validation performance is used for final evaluation. Across six benchmarks and five target models, the paper reports consistent improvements over a reproduced SkillOpt baseline and, with GPT-5.5, claims 73.2% fewer skill-evolution tokens and a gain increase from 117.8 to 128.7 percentage points.

Significance. If the efficiency and performance claims hold, this is a genuinely useful contribution: it reuses an existing test-time search structure as a source of dense, localized supervision for skills, and the ablation in Table 3 supports the value of sibling evidence over both single-path and whole-tree alternatives. The method is described in enough detail to reproduce, the main hyperparameters are explicit, and the cross-model and cross-dataset transfer experiments in Section 4.5 provide evidence beyond in-domain memorization. The principal caveat is that the headline quantitative claims rest on single runs with validation-gated best-checkpoint selection on small validation sets, so the claimed superiority over SkillOpt is not yet established at the precision stated.

major comments (4)

[§4.1, Eq. (3), Figure 6, Table 1] The validation gate and best-checkpoint selection are load-bearing for the central performance claim. With validation sets of only 18–53 examples and 10 evolution steps, selecting the checkpoint with the strongest validation performance is likely to exploit validation noise, and the reported aggregate gain (117.8 to 128.7 percentage points) could be partly an artifact of that selection. Because all results come from a single run without error bars, I ask for repeated runs with different seeds or problem orderings, reporting means and standard deviations, and an analysis of how often the final selected checkpoint differs from the last accepted one. If repeated runs are infeasible, a control that evaluates the last accepted skill instead of the best-validation checkpoint would bound the magnitude of this selection effect.
[§4.2, Figure 2] The 73.2% token-reduction claim is only reported as an aggregate across six benchmarks; the only per-benchmark token comparison shown is LiveMath (23.2M to 6.7M). Because token costs depend on benchmark interfaces, rollout lengths, and the number of training problems, the aggregate claim should be backed by a per-benchmark token table for Branch2Skill and SkillOpt. The text should also specify exactly which calls are included in the token counts: tree node generation, scoring, completions, optimizer calls, and validation inference, or a precise subset.
[Table 3, §4.4] The ablations are presented without error bars, significance tests, or repeated runs. At single-run granularity, differences such as depth 4 vs. 6 on LiveMath (57.3 vs. 60.5) or child count 2 vs. 3 (56.5 vs. 60.5) could easily fall within run-to-run noise. Since the ablation is used to argue that broader search and sibling evidence matter, these claims need repeated runs or at least a statement of variance across seeds.
[§4.2, Table 2] The comparison against SkillOpt is central to the paper, but the text does not state whether the reproduced SkillOpt results use the same validation-gated best-checkpoint selection as Branch2Skill, nor how many runs the reported SkillOpt numbers are based on. If the protocols differ, the comparison may be biased; if they are the same, the noise concern from the first major comment applies equally to both and must be addressed. Please clarify the exact evaluation protocol used for SkillOpt.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract, Section 1] There is a typo in Section 1: "a efficient search-guided framework" should be "an efficient search-guided framework."
[Section 3.2] The sentence "The target model is required to complete a path when the remaining depth or search budget becomes small" does not specify the threshold for "small." Please give the exact rule, as it affects reproducibility.
[Eq. (3), Section 3.4] The componentwise nonregression rule uses the symbol ⪰, but the text does not state whether all designated validation metrics are already oriented so that higher is better. If any metric is lower-is-better, the comparison needs an explicit sign convention.
[Table 2] The caption says "Bold and underlined entries denote the best and second-best results," but several entries are tied; please state how ties are broken or indicate tie handling.
[Section 4.1] The benchmark name appears as both "LiveMathematicianBench" and "LiveMath"; please use one consistent name or define the abbreviation at first use.
[Section 1, Figure 2] The aggregate "total gain" of 117.8 to 128.7 percentage points is presented as a sum across six benchmarks; the units and the fact that it is a sum should be stated clearly, since percentage-point gains are not additive across benchmarks without explicit convention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: central gains are measured against external benchmarks and an official SkillOpt reproduction; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical efficiency and performance gains: with GPT-5.5, Branch2Skill uses 73.2% fewer skill-evolution tokens than SkillOpt and increases aggregate test gain from 117.8 to 128.7 percentage points. These numbers are computed against an official SkillOpt reproduction on six external benchmarks (SearchQA, SpreadsheetBench, OfficeQA, DocVQA, LiveMath, ALFWorld), not derived from the method's own definitions. The method's components are explicitly specified: PUCT tree search, shared-prefix sibling evidence extraction (Eq. 2), the componentwise nonregression validation gate (Eq. 3), and APPEND/REPLACE/DELETE skill edits. Hyperparameters are fixed (depth 6, 3 children, 40 iterations) and ablated in Table 3; no parameter is fitted to the reported test sets and then relabeled as a prediction. The validation gate selects checkpoints on a small fixed validation set, which raises a legitimate correctness risk about overfitting validation noise, but this is a standard checkpoint-selection procedure, not a circular reduction of the test claim to the method's input. The self-citations to SIGMA [20] and OpenClaw-Skill [13] appear in Related Work as background on sibling-guided tree search and collective skill trees; neither is invoked as the authority for the token-efficiency or test-gain claims, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. No equation or result reduces by construction to its own input, and the paper does not rename a known result as a new derivation. The derived claims are therefore self-contained in the sense required for a circularity finding, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative claims rest on search hyperparameters chosen by hand and on four domain assumptions about LLM self-assessment, sibling attribution, small validation sets, and skill transfer. None is derived or formally verified; the ablations test depth, children, and budget only at default anchor points, and cpuct is not reported.

free parameters (5)

M (training problems per update) = 2
Section 4.1: every update uses two training problems. Chosen by hand; not swept in ablations.
Dmax (maximum tree depth) = 6
Default; ablation in Table 3 shows performance rises with depth from 2 to 6.
C (child nodes per expansion) = 3
Default; ablation in Table 3 shows 3 beats 1 and 2.
I (MCTS iteration budget per problem) = 40
Default; ablation in Table 3 shows 40 beats 10 and 20.
cpuct (PUCT exploration coefficient) = not reported
Controls exploration and exploitation in Eq. (1); no value or sensitivity analysis is given.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Sibling branches that share a prefix attribute downstream outcome differences to the decision at the divergence point.
Section 3.3 states this; it assumes no cross-depth interactions contaminate the contrast.
domain assumption The target model's scalar progress scores and terminal completions are informative enough to select an elite path and rank sibling outcomes.
Section 3.2: search uses self-assigned scores; no ground-truth process supervision is used.
domain assumption Validation accuracy on the fixed, small validation sets is a reliable proxy for test performance across update steps.
Section 3.4 Eq. (3) and Section 4.1: componentwise nonregression and best-checkpoint selection rely on this.
domain assumption Natural-language APPEND, REPLACE, and DELETE edits to a persistent skill transfer to held-out tasks.
Section 3.4: skills are frozen and applied to test sets, so transferability is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Branch2Skill: Efficient Skill Evolution Through Reasoning Trees." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HZXPYYE2

@misc{pith2026260808677,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Branch2Skill: Efficient Skill Evolution Through Reasoning Trees},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HZXPYYE2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08677}
}

read the original abstract

Skill evolution improves agent skills through feedback over time, with failed trajectories often providing informative signals by revealing incomplete or misleading behaviors. However, existing methods mainly rely on single trajectories, where early reasoning errors can propagate through subsequent steps and weaken the feedback available for skill refinement. Consequently, improving skills requires repeated cycles of rollout, diagnosis, and update, incurring substantial token costs. To address this challenge, we introduce Branch2Skill, an efficient framework that transforms a single reasoning tree into dense supervision for skill evolution. For each task or problem, Branch2Skill performs Monte Carlo tree search under a fixed budget to obtain diverse reasoning trajectories, then compares an elite path with sibling alternatives sharing the same prefixes to extract step-wise evidence about which reasoning patterns to retain, revise, or avoid. Finally, Branch2Skill distills multi-step evidence into reusable updates, allowing one reasoning tree to provide supervision across multiple reasoning steps and reducing the need for repeated rollout-update cycles. Across six benchmarks covering reasoning and agentic tasks, Branch2Skill consistently improves task performance while enhancing skill evolution efficiency. For example, with GPT 5.5 as the target model, Branch2Skill uses 73.2% fewer tokens than SkillOpt, while achieving superior performance. These results demonstrate that reasoning trees can support not only more effective trajectory search, but also richer supervision for more efficient skill improvement. Code will be published.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

Gepa: Reflective prompt evolution can outper- form reinforcement learning

Lakshya A Agrawal, Shangyin Tan, Dilara Soylu, Noah Ziems, Rishi Khare, Krista Opsahl-Ong, Arnav Singhvi, Herumb Shandilya, Michael J Ryan, Meng Jiang, et al. Gepa: Reflective prompt evolution can outper- form reinforcement learning. InFirst Workshop on Foundations of Rea- soning in Language Models, 2025

work page 2025
[2]

Evoskill: Automated skill discovery for multi-agent systems

Salaheddin Alzubi, Noah Provenzano, Jaydon Bingham, Weiyuan Chen, and Tu Vu. Evoskill: Automated skill discovery for multi-agent systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.02766, 2026

arXiv 2026
[3]

Step-level value preference optimization for mathematical reasoning

Guoxin Chen, Minpeng Liao, Chengxi Li, and Kai Fan. Step-level value preference optimization for mathematical reasoning. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, page 7889–7903. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024

work page 2024
[4]

SkillCAT: Contrastive, Assessment-Augmented and Topology-AwareSkill Self-Evolution for LLM Agents

Kunfeng Chen, Qihuang Zhong, Juhua Liu, and Bo Du. Skillcat: Con- trastive assessment and topology-aware skill self-evolution for LLM agents.CoRR, abs/2606.13317, 2026

work page Pith review arXiv 2026
[5]

Ugur G ¨uney, V olkan Cirik, and Kyunghyun Cho

Matthew Dunn, Levent Sagun, Mike Higgins, V . Ugur G ¨uney, V olkan Cirik, and Kyunghyun Cho. Searchqa: A new q&a dataset augmented with context from a search engine.CoRR, abs/1704.05179, 2017. 8

arXiv 2017
[6]

Omni-math: A uni- versal olympiad level mathematic benchmark for large language models

Bofei Gao, Feifan Song, Zhe Yang, Zefan Cai, Yibo Miao, Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Chenghao Ma, Liang Chen, Runxin Xu, et al. Omni-math: A uni- versal olympiad level mathematic benchmark for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07985, 2024

arXiv
[7]

Branching Policy Optimization: Sandbox-Native Language Agent Reinforcement Learning

Bowei He, Yankai Chen, Xiaokun Zhang, and Xue Liu. Branching pol- icy optimization: Sandbox-native language agent reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.14171, 2026

work page Pith review arXiv 2026
[8]

Olympiadbench: A challenging bench- mark for promoting agi with olympiad-level bilingual multimodal scien- tific problems

Chaoqun He, Renjie Luo, Yuzhuo Bai, Shengding Hu, Zhen Thai, Junhao Shen, Jinyi Hu, Xu Han, Yujie Huang, Yuxiang Zhang, Jie Liu, Lei Qi, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. Olympiadbench: A challenging bench- mark for promoting agi with olympiad-level bilingual multimodal scien- tific problems. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the As- sociation for C...

work page 2024

Show all 34 references

[9]

Livemathematicianbench: A live benchmark for mathematician-level reasoning with proof sketches

Linyang He, Qiyao Yu, Hanze Dong, Baohao Liao, Xinxing Xu, Micah Goldblum, Jiang Bian, and Nima Mesgarani. Livemathematicianbench: A live benchmark for mathematician-level reasoning with proof sketches. CoRR, abs/2604.01754, 2026

2026
[10]

Advancing process verification for large language models via tree-based preference learning

Mingqian He, Yongliang Shen, Wenqi Zhang, Zeqi Tan, and Weiming Lu. Advancing process verification for large language models via tree-based preference learning. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, page 2086–2099. Associatio...

2024
[11]

Bandit based monte-carlo plan- ning

Levente Kocsis and Csaba Szepesv ´ari. Bandit based monte-carlo plan- ning. InEuropean conference on machine learning, pages 282–293. Springer, 2006

2006
[12]

Let’s verify step by step

Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let’s verify step by step. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, pages 39578–39601, 2024

2024
[13]

Openclaw-skill: Collective skill tree search for agentic large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.16774, 2026

Tianyi Lin, Chuanyu Sun, Jingyi Zhang, Changxu Wei, Huanjin Yao, Shunyu Liu, Xikun Zhang, Liu Liu, and Jiaxing Huang. Openclaw-skill: Collective skill tree search for agentic large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.16774, 2026

2026
[14]

Learning from contrasts: Synthesizing reasoning paths from diverse search trajectories

Peiyang Liu, Zhirui Chen, Xi Wang, Di Liang, Youru Li, Zhi Cai, and Wei Ye. Learning from contrasts: Synthesizing reasoning paths from diverse search trajectories. InProceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)...

2026
[15]

Skill- gen: Verified inference-time agent skill synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.10999, 2026

Yuchen Ma, Yue Huang, Han Bao, Haomin Zhuang, Swadheen Shukla, Michel Galley, Xiangliang Zhang, and Stefan Feuerriegel. Skill- gen: Verified inference-time agent skill synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.10999, 2026

2026 arXiv
[16]

Spreadsheetbench: Towards challenging real world spreadsheet manipulation

Zeyao Ma, Bohan Zhang, Jing Zhang, Jifan Yu, Xiaokang Zhang, Xiao- han Zhang, Sijia Luo, Xi Wang, and Jie Tang. Spreadsheetbench: Towards challenging real world spreadsheet manipulation. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37, page 94871–94908. Neural Informa- ...

2024
[17]

Docvqa: A dataset for vqa on document images

Minesh Mathew, Dimosthenis Karatzas, and CV Jawahar. Docvqa: A dataset for vqa on document images. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, pages 2200–2209, 2021

2021
[18]

Trace2skill: Distill trajectory-local lessons into transferable agent skills

Jingwei Ni, Yihao Liu, Xinpeng Liu, Yutao Sun, Mengyu Zhou, Pengyu Cheng, Dexin Wang, Erchao Zhao, Xiaoxi Jiang, and Guanjun Jiang. Trace2skill: Distill trajectory-local lessons into transferable agent skills. CoRR, abs/2603.25158, 2026

2026 arXiv
[19]

Officeqa pro: An enterprise benchmark for end-to-end grounded reasoning.CoRR, abs/2603.08655, 2026

Krista Opsahl-Ong, Arnav Singhvi, Jasmine Collins, Ivan Zhou, Cindy Wang, Ashutosh Baheti, Owen Oertell, Jacob Portes, Sam Havens, Erich Elsen, Michael Bendersky, Matei Zaharia, and Xing Chen. Officeqa pro: An enterprise benchmark for end-to-end grounded reasoning.CoRR, abs/26...

2026
[20]

Sigma: Refining large language model rea- soning via sibling-guided monte carlo augmentation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:84265–84297, 2026

Yanwei Ren, Haotian Zhang, Fuxiang Wu, Jiayan Qiu, Jiaxing Huang, Baosheng Yu, and Liu Liu. Sigma: Refining large language model rea- soning via sibling-guided monte carlo augmentation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:84265–84297, 2026

2026
[21]

Skillopt-lite: Better and faster agent self-evolution via one line of vibe.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.03451, 2026

Yifei Shen, Bo Li, and Xinjie Zhang. Skillopt-lite: Better and faster agent self-evolution via one line of vibe.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.03451, 2026

2026 arXiv
[22]

Reflexion: language agents with verbal reinforcement learning

Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion: language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36, page 8634–8652. Neural Information Processing Systems Foundation, Inc. (Neu...

2023
[23]

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

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

2010 arXiv
[24]

Mas- tering the game of go without human knowledge.Nature, 550(7676): 354–359, 2017

David Silver, Julian Schrittwieser, Karen Simonyan, Ioannis Antonoglou, Aja Huang, Arthur Guez, Thomas Hubert, Lucas Baker, Matthew Lai, Adrian Bolton, Yutian Chen, Timothy Lillicrap, Fan Hui, Laurent Sifre, George van den Driessche, Thore Graepel, and Demis Hassabis. Mas- ter...

2017
[25]

V oyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models.CoRR, abs/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.CoRR, abs/2305.16291, 2023

2023 arXiv
[26]

Skillgrad: Optimizing agent skills like gradient descent.CoRR, abs/2605.27760, 2026

Hanyu Wang, Yifan Lan, Bochuan Cao, Lu Lin, and Jinghui Chen. Skillgrad: Optimizing agent skills like gradient descent.CoRR, abs/2605.27760, 2026

2026 arXiv
[27]

Math-shepherd: Verify and reinforce llms step-by-step without human annotations

Peiyi Wang, Lei Li, Zhihong Shao, Runxin Xu, Damai Dai, Yifei Li, Deli Chen, Yu Wu, and Zhifang Sui. Math-shepherd: Verify and reinforce llms step-by-step without human annotations. InProceedings of the 62nd An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vo...

2024
[28]

Buffer of thoughts: Thought- augmented reasoning with large language models

Ling Yang, Zhaochen Yu, Tianjun Zhang, Shiyi Cao, Minkai Xu, Wen- tao Zhang, Joseph Gonzalez, and Bin Cui. Buffer of thoughts: Thought- augmented reasoning with large language models. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37, page 113519–113544. Neural Infor- mat...

2024
[29]

Skillopt: Executive strategy for self-evolving agent skills.CoRR, abs/2605.23904, 2026

Yifan Yang, Ziyang Gong, Weiquan Huang, Qihao Yang, Ziwei Zhou, Zisu Huang, Yan Li, Xuemei Gao, Qi Dai, Bei Liu, Kai Qiu, Yuqing Yang, Dongdong Chen, Xue Yang, and Chong Luo. Skillopt: Executive strategy for self-evolving agent skills.CoRR, abs/2605.23904, 2026

2026 arXiv
[30]

Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solv- ing with large language models

Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Tom Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solv- ing with large language models. InAdvances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems 36, page 11809–11822. Neural Information Processi...

2023
[31]

SkillAdaptor: Self-adapting skills for LLM agents from trajectories.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.01311, 2026

Zhuoyun Yu, Xin Xie, Wuguannan Yao, Chenxi Wang, Lei Liang, Xiang Qi, and Shumin Deng. SkillAdaptor: Self-adapting skills for LLM agents from trajectories.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.01311, 2026

2026 arXiv
[32]

Optimizing generative ai by backpropagating language model feedback.Nature, 639(8055):609–616, 2025

Mert Yuksekgonul, Federico Bianchi, Joseph Boen, Sheng Liu, Pan Lu, Zhi Huang, Carlos Guestrin, and James Zou. Optimizing generative ai by backpropagating language model feedback.Nature, 639(8055):609–616, 2025

2025
[33]

Expel: Llm agents are experiential learners.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 38(17):19632–19642, 2024

Andrew Zhao, Daniel Huang, Quentin Xu, Matthieu Lin, Yong-Jin Liu, and Gao Huang. Expel: Llm agents are experiential learners.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 38(17):19632–19642, 2024

2024
[34]

Language agent tree search unifies reasoning, acting, and planning in language models

Andy Zhou, Kai Yan, Michal Shlapentokh-Rothman, Haohan Wang, and Yu-Xiong Wang. Language agent tree search unifies reasoning, acting, and planning in language models. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 62138–62160. PMLR, 2024. 9

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Gepa: Reflective prompt evolution can outper- form reinforcement learning

Lakshya A Agrawal, Shangyin Tan, Dilara Soylu, Noah Ziems, Rishi Khare, Krista Opsahl-Ong, Arnav Singhvi, Herumb Shandilya, Michael J Ryan, Meng Jiang, et al. Gepa: Reflective prompt evolution can outper- form reinforcement learning. InFirst Workshop on Foundations of Rea- soning in Language Models, 2025

work page 2025

[2] [2]

Evoskill: Automated skill discovery for multi-agent systems

Salaheddin Alzubi, Noah Provenzano, Jaydon Bingham, Weiyuan Chen, and Tu Vu. Evoskill: Automated skill discovery for multi-agent systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.02766, 2026

arXiv 2026

[3] [3]

Step-level value preference optimization for mathematical reasoning

Guoxin Chen, Minpeng Liao, Chengxi Li, and Kai Fan. Step-level value preference optimization for mathematical reasoning. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, page 7889–7903. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024

work page 2024

[4] [4]

SkillCAT: Contrastive, Assessment-Augmented and Topology-AwareSkill Self-Evolution for LLM Agents

Kunfeng Chen, Qihuang Zhong, Juhua Liu, and Bo Du. Skillcat: Con- trastive assessment and topology-aware skill self-evolution for LLM agents.CoRR, abs/2606.13317, 2026

work page Pith review arXiv 2026

[5] [5]

Ugur G ¨uney, V olkan Cirik, and Kyunghyun Cho

Matthew Dunn, Levent Sagun, Mike Higgins, V . Ugur G ¨uney, V olkan Cirik, and Kyunghyun Cho. Searchqa: A new q&a dataset augmented with context from a search engine.CoRR, abs/1704.05179, 2017. 8

arXiv 2017

[6] [6]

Omni-math: A uni- versal olympiad level mathematic benchmark for large language models

Bofei Gao, Feifan Song, Zhe Yang, Zefan Cai, Yibo Miao, Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Chenghao Ma, Liang Chen, Runxin Xu, et al. Omni-math: A uni- versal olympiad level mathematic benchmark for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07985, 2024

arXiv

[7] [7]

Branching Policy Optimization: Sandbox-Native Language Agent Reinforcement Learning

Bowei He, Yankai Chen, Xiaokun Zhang, and Xue Liu. Branching pol- icy optimization: Sandbox-native language agent reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.14171, 2026

work page Pith review arXiv 2026

[8] [8]

Olympiadbench: A challenging bench- mark for promoting agi with olympiad-level bilingual multimodal scien- tific problems

Chaoqun He, Renjie Luo, Yuzhuo Bai, Shengding Hu, Zhen Thai, Junhao Shen, Jinyi Hu, Xu Han, Yujie Huang, Yuxiang Zhang, Jie Liu, Lei Qi, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. Olympiadbench: A challenging bench- mark for promoting agi with olympiad-level bilingual multimodal scien- tific problems. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the As- sociation for C...

work page 2024