Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 19 references

Co-Evolution in Agentic Systems: Toward Self-Directed Evolution Beyond Human Design

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 The paper argues that agentic improvement is fundamentally co-evolutionary: multiple agents, their environments, and eventually their own evolution mechanisms change in response to one another, and this survey organizes that literature…

desk verdict A useful, honest survey whose new three-stage taxonomy is worth taking seriously, provided Stage 3 is presented as a research direction rather than an established category. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10299 v1 pith:WTKHF2HN submitted 2026-08-10 cs.CL

Qing Zong , Jiayu Liu , Junhao Shen , Zecong Tang , Linsi Wu , Yuxuan Liu , Rui Wang , Zhaowei Wang
show 4 more authors
Weiqi Wang Cheng Qian Xiusi Chen Yangqiu Song
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords co-evolutionagenticsystemsself-evolvingagentsmulti-agentopen-endednessmetaadaptiveenvironmentsLLM
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

Agentic systems improve not only by evolving as single entities but by co-evolving: multiple agents, and eventually their environments and even their own evolution mechanisms, change in response to one another. The paper proposes a progressive three-stage taxonomy—agent–agent co-evolution, agent–environment co-evolution, and meta co-evolution—that traces how a system sheds human-engineered constraints and expands what it is allowed to evolve. The aim is to unify scattered work on adversarial, collaborative, environment-driven, and meta-level adaptation under one definition: co-evolution occurs when at least two evolving units jointly adapt and continually reshape each other's further evolution, rather than merely exchanging information. If the taxonomy holds, it gives researchers a shared map for building self-directed, open-ended agentic systems that keep improving after deployment.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the formal definition of co-evolution and the three-stage taxonomy built on it. A system is $S = (A, E)$ with agent collective $A = (\{a_1,\ldots,a_n\}, \Pi)$ and environment $E$; an agent $a_i = (m_i, h_i)$ has a model backbone and a harness (memory, tools, skills, prompts, workflows); an evolution mechanism $\Omega$ drives state transitions $S_{t+1} = \Omega(S_t, \tau_t)$, specifying what can evolve, when, how, where, and how to evaluate. Co-evolution requires at least two units $x \neq y$ in $S_t$ that both change and exert evolutionary pressure on each other. Stage 3 adds the meta recursion $\Omega_{t+1} = \Gamma_t(S_t, \Omega_t, \tau_t)$, where a self-generated revision process changes the mechanism that then drives lower-level evolution. The five-way decomposition of $\Omega$ into what, when, how, where, and evaluate is what lets the survey classify methods and delimit the frontier of the field.

What would settle it

Inspect RQGM's update loop: if its meta-agent revises the evolution mechanism using only the trajectory of a single entity, rather than joint feedback from at least two mutually adapting units, then the paper's Stage 3 definition is unmet and the third tier has no current instantiation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that co-evolution is a distinct and increasingly central mode of agentic self-improvement, and that the field can be organized by an expanding boundary of evolutionary freedom. Stage 1 covers agents adapting through dynamic peers—adversarial, collaborative, and organizational—within a fixed environment. Stage 2 extends adaptation to the environment itself: tasks, feedback, and interaction spaces that change with the agents. Stage 3, meta co-evolution, is defined by a recursion in which the evolution mechanism $\Omega$ is revised by a self-generated process $\Gamma$, so the system decides what, when, how, and where to evolve, and how to evaluate those changes. The paper presents meta co-evolution as a pathway toward open-endedness, characterized by continuous novelty ($\Omega_{t+1} \neq \Omega_t$) and unbounded adaptive capacity ($\lim_{t\to\infty} H(S_t, \Omega_t) = \infty$), and identifies RQGM as the one cited work currently meeting that definition.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that RQGM (Iacob et al., 2026) genuinely meets the paper's definition of meta co-evolution—a lower-level co-evolving system whose joint feedback revises its own evolution mechanism—so that Stage 3 is occupied rather than speculative.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Co-evolution should be treated as distinct from interaction, self-play, evolutionary optimization, and continual learning, so evaluation and benchmarks must track whether multiple components improve together.
  • Adversarial, collaborative, and organizational adaptation are one stage, not separate trends, because they differ only in what evolves within the agent collective.
  • Adaptive tasks, feedback, and interaction spaces belong to a single second stage, so progress on curriculum learning, reward-model updates, and world-model construction can be compared on the same axis.
  • Realizing meta co-evolution would let systems move from adaptation under designed rules toward self-expanding open-endedness, but requires governance that keeps the process auditable and interruptible.
  • Fixed benchmarks should be paired with process-level testing—historical cross-play, component ablations, and held-out evaluators—to catch evaluator exploitation, partner overfitting, and diversity collapse.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of Stage 3 is to ablate the lower-level co-evolution: if the meta-agent's revision signal is built from a single entity's trajectory, the system is a precursor, not meta co-evolution.
  • The Red Queen logic implies that static benchmarks will increasingly understate what co-evolved systems can do, because the counterpart's adaptation is itself the source of difficulty; evaluation may eventually need to co-evolve with the systems it measures.
  • The taxonomy suggests a scaling route from pairwise loops (attacker–defender, policy–reward, agent–task) to full multi-component systems, with the meta-mechanism deciding which components should change at each step.
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. This manuscript is a survey of co-evolution in agentic systems, defined as a multi-component form of self-evolution in which multiple agents and their environment impose adaptive pressure on one another. The authors propose a progressive three-stage taxonomy: Agent–Agent Co-Evolution, Agent–Environment Co-Evolution, and Meta Co-Evolution, in which the evolution mechanism itself becomes evolvable. The survey reviews a large body of work under this taxonomy, provides formal definitions and comparisons with adjacent surveys, and includes a cross-paper evidence figure (Figure 4) intended to show that co-evolution improves performance and that gains plateau over time. The authors also discuss evaluation, scaling, and safety challenges, and they explicitly acknowledge in the Limitations that Stage 3 is supported by very little work and that much of the related material is single-entity precursors.

Significance. If the taxonomy holds, this would be a useful organizing contribution: it unifies scattered work on adversarial, collaborative, environment-driven, and meta-level adaptation under a single progressive framework, and it provides a vocabulary for an important emerging direction. The manuscript's strengths include its breadth of coverage, its formal distinction between co-evolution and adjacent concepts (interaction, self-play, evolutionary optimization, meta-evolution), its systematic comparison with other surveys, and its transparent description of the construction of Figure 4 in Appendix C. The Stage 3 category is the most fragile part of the contribution: it rests on a single paper (RQGM) whose fit to the paper's own definition is not established in the text. The empirical narrative built around Figure 4 is also weakened by the exclusion of non-improving trajectories in Panel C. These issues are significant because the progressive, three-stage structure and the plateau/convergence claim are central to the survey's thesis, but they are fixable by either verifying the classification or reframing Stage 3 as a speculative future direction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2 and Appendix A] The placement of RQGM in Stage 3 is not established against the paper's own formal definition. The definition in §2.3 requires a lower-level co-evolving system with at least two persistent adaptive units, plus a self-generated revision process Γt that changes the evolution mechanism Ωt and is driven by the joint trajectory of that lower-level system. The single sentence about RQGM in §5.2 — "co-evolving task agents and evaluators, while its meta-agent uses joint feedback to guide later evolution" — does not rule out the possibility that the meta-agent is a fixed higher-level controller, which Appendix A explicitly permits for mere meta-evolution. It also does not show that the task agents and evaluators are distinct persistent units that continually reshape each other's further evolution, as opposed to a single agent training against a learned reward model, which would be Stage 2 feedback-space co-evolution. Because Stage 3 is one of the three claimed contributions, this classification must be either verified in detail or downgraded to a precursor/future direction.
  2. [Appendix C and Section 5.1] Panel C of Figure 4 is constructed from trajectories that are included only if they have an observed positive improvement, and the construction relies on approximate digitization of published plots. Section 5.1 uses this figure to claim that "Stage 1 and Stage 2 improve performance across most settings, but the gains become smaller as evolution approaches a plateau." Excluding non-improving trajectories biases the normalized curves upward and makes the claim "across most settings" unsupported by the evidence as presented; the figure can at most describe the average shape of improving trajectories. The authors should either include non-improving trajectories (with an explicit statement of how they are handled) or substantially qualify the plateau claim. This is load-bearing because the convergence narrative motivates the need for Stage 3.
  3. [Section 2.2] The formal definition of co-evolution uses the condition "x evolutionary pressure ←→ y," but the arrow is never defined. Since the entire contribution of the paper hinges on separating co-evolution from mere interaction or correlation, this is the most important primitive in the survey. Without an operational criterion for "exerts evolutionary pressure on," it is hard to audit the inclusion decisions in the taxonomy, especially for cases where two components update simultaneously for external reasons. The authors should provide at least a checklist or a directional dependence criterion, such as whether a change in x changes the learning problem faced by y in the next step.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2.1] There is a typo in the sentence beginning "where peer agents share a single task reward and co-adapt as the others chang": "chang" should be "change."
  2. [References] The reference list contains two entries for what appears to be the same paper by Zhai et al. (2025a and 2025b), both titled "AgentEvolver: Towards efficient self-evolving agent system." This should be consolidated.
  3. [Table 1] In Table 1, several cells contain missing spaces after periods, e.g., "No dedicated coverage.Section 3.4 lists" and similar patterns. These should be fixed for readability.
  4. [Figure 3] Figure 3 is extremely dense, with tiny font and overlapping annotations in the reproduced version. The authors should consider splitting the landscape into separate figures or providing a higher-resolution version, and should spell out the legend items that currently read as fragments such as "Paper backgrounds."
  5. [Appendix C] The appendix states that some values were "approximately digitized from the published plots" but does not say which papers were digitized rather than read from explicit labels. Listing these papers would improve reproducibility and would let readers judge the precision of Panel C.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the taxonomy is a classification of external work, and the paper's self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is a survey and taxonomy, not a derivation with fitted parameters or predictions. The three-stage taxonomy is an organizational scheme imposed on the literature: Stage 1 is defined by evolution within the agent collective, Stage 2 by evolution of the environment, and Stage 3 by evolution of the evolution mechanism itself. Papers are assigned to stages based on their reported mechanisms, and the assignment is transparently a classification rather than a consequence of the definitions. The only formal relationship that could look definitional is the link between Stage 3 and open-endedness: the paper defines Stage 3 with the equations Ω_{t+1} = Γ_t(S_t, Ω_t, τ_t) and S_{t+1} = Ω_{t+1}(S_t, τ_t), and then says this 'provides a pathway toward open-endedness' characterized by continuous novelty (Ω_{t+1} ≠ Ω_t) and unbounded divergence (lim H = ∞). However, the paper carefully says 'offers a route' and 'pathway,' not 'is equivalent to,' so this is a conceptual mapping, not a circular derivation. The self-citations (EvolvingWorld, CostBench, AdaPlanBench, SkillRevise, PlanBench-XL) are used as illustrative examples or evaluation-benchmark references; none carries the burden of the taxonomy, and deleting them would not change the central claim. The Limitations section also explicitly concedes that 'only limited work currently meets our definition of Stage 3,' which is the opposite of using the definition to manufacture support. No equation in the paper is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing result is imported solely from the authors' prior work. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented physical entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are definitional (what counts as co-evolution, what counts as open-endedness) and interpretive (accurate representation of cited works).

assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper Co-evolution requires at least two adaptive units x, y in S_t such that both change and exert evolutionary pressure on each other (Section 2.2).
    This definition is the paper's own inclusion criterion; it excludes interaction, self-play, and single-entity self-evolution, and determines which papers enter the taxonomy.
  • domain assumption Open-endedness is defined by continuous novelty (Omega_{t+1} != Omega_t) and unbounded divergence (lim_{t->inf} H(S_t, Omega_t) = infinity) (Section 2.3 and 5.1).
    The paper adopts and formalizes the open-endedness notion from Stanley et al. and Hughes et al.; it is used to justify meta co-evolution as a route to open-endedness.
  • domain assumption The cited works are accurately represented in the taxonomy and in Figure 4's matched comparisons (Appendix C).
    The survey's validity depends on correct interpretation of dozens of papers; some classifications, such as RQGM as Stage 3, are load-bearing but not independently verified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Co-Evolution in Agentic Systems: Toward Self-Directed Evolution Beyond Human Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WTKHF2HN

@misc{pith2026260810299,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Co-Evolution in Agentic Systems: Toward Self-Directed Evolution Beyond Human Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WTKHF2HN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10299}
}
read the original abstract

Agentic systems are increasingly expected to improve after deployment, yet single-entity self-evolution is often bounded by a static learning context, such as fixed tasks and feedback. This survey focuses on co-evolution in agentic systems, a multi-component form of self-evolution in which multiple agents and their environment impose adaptive pressure on one another. To organize existing papers, we propose a progressive three-stage taxonomy that traces how the system gradually sheds human-engineered constraints. Agent--Agent Co-Evolution studies how agents adapt through dynamic peers, including adversarial, collaborative, and organizational adaptation. Agent--Environment Co-Evolution extends this loop to adaptive tasks, feedback, and interaction spaces that change with the agents. Meta Co-Evolution further explores the possibility of making the evolution mechanism itself evolvable. We also discuss open challenges in evaluating such systems, scaling them across multiple components, and keeping increasingly autonomous evolutionary processes safe and controllable. This survey provides a unified foundation for building robust and open-ended agentic systems that can improve beyond fixed human-designed paths.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10299 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between single-entity self￾evolution and multi-component co-evolution. agent persistently updates itself from experience, feedback, and failures without human interven￾tion. One important form is single-entity self￾evolution, where updates occur within one agent, such as refining its model backbone (Zhai et al., 2025a; Wu et al., 2025), updating memory (Suz￾gun et al., 2026), or improving skills (Xiao et … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The progressive taxonomy of co-evolution, which reflects an expanding boundary of evolutionary freedom. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Paper landscape of co-evolution in agentic systems. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cross-paper evidence for the effect, consistency, and convergence of co-evolution. See Appendix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [12]

    Jürgen Schmidhuber

    OpenReview.net. Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2007. Gödel machines: Fully self- referential optimal universal self-improvers. In Ben Goertzel and Cassio Pennachin, editors,Artificial General Intelligence, Cognitive Technologies, pages 199–226. Springer. David Silver, Julian Schrittwieser, Karen Simonyan, Ioannis Antonoglou, Aja Huang, Arthur Guez, Thomas Hubert, Lu...

    arXiv 2007

  2. [15]

    PORTAL: automatic curricula generation for multiagent reinforcement learning. InThirty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2024, Thirty-Sixth Conference on Innovative Applica- tions of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2024, Fourteenth Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2024, February 20-27, 2024, Van- couve...

    arXiv 2024

  3. [16]

    Peng Xia, Kaide Zeng, Jiaqi Liu, Can Qin, Fang Wu, Yiyang Zhou, Caiming Xiong, and Huaxiu Yao

    Evolver: Self-evolving LLM agents through an experience-driven lifecycle.CoRR, abs/2510.16079. Peng Xia, Kaide Zeng, Jiaqi Liu, Can Qin, Fang Wu, Yiyang Zhou, Caiming Xiong, and Huaxiu Yao

    arXiv

  4. [17]

    Agent0: Unleashing self-evolving agents from zero data via tool-integrated reasoning.CoRR, abs/2511.16043. Zhishang Xiang, Chengyi Yang, Zerui Chen, Zhimin Wei, Yunbo Tang, Zongpei Teng, Zexi Peng, Zongxia Li, Chengsong Huang, Yicheng He, Chang Yang, Xinrun Wang, Xiao Huang, Qinggang Zhang, and Jin- song Su. 2026. A systematic survey of self-evolving agen...

    arXiv 2026

  5. [18]

    Socratic-swe: Self-evolving coding agents via trace-derived agent skills.CoRR, abs/2606.07412. Tianbao Xie, Danyang Zhang, Jixuan Chen, Xiaochuan Li, Siheng Zhao, Ruisheng Cao, Toh Jing Hua, Zhou- jun Cheng, Dongchan Shin, Fangyu Lei, Yitao Liu, Yiheng Xu, Shuyan Zhou, Silvio Savarese, Caiming Xiong, Victor Zhong, and Tao Yu. 2024. Osworld: Benchmarking m...

    arXiv 2024

  6. [19]

    Co-Evolution via Embedded External Tools,

    OpenReview.net. Xuhui Zhou, Hao Zhu, Leena Mathur, Ruohong Zhang, Haofei Yu, Zhengyang Qi, Louis-Philippe Morency, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, Graham Neubig, and Maarten Sap. 2024b. SOTOPIA: interactive evalu- ation for social intelligence in language agents. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, ...

    arXiv 2026

  7. [246]

    Curriculum Learning for Cooperation in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

    ACM. Bowen Baker, Ingmar Kanitscheider, Todor M. Markov, Yi Wu, Glenn Powell, Bob McGrew, and Igor Mor- datch. 2020. Emergent tool use from multi-agent autocurricula. In8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net. Trapit Bansal, Jakub Pachocki, Szymon Sidor, Ilya Sutskever, ...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  8. [2018]

    Counterfactual multi-agent policy gradients. InProceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Confer- ence on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI-18), the 30th in- novative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI- 18), and the 8th AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence (EAAI-18), New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, February 2-7, 2018, pages 29...

    arXiv 2018

Show all 19 references
  1. [2021]

    In9th International Confer- ence on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Vir- tual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021

    Adaptive procedural task generation for hard- exploration problems. In9th International Confer- ence on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Vir- tual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net. Tianqing Fang, Hongming Zhang, Zhisong Zhang, Kaixin Ma, Wenhao Yu, Haitao Mi, ...

    2021

  2. [2022]

    Yunhao Liang, Yuan Qu, Jingyuan Yang, Shaochong Lin, and Zuo-Jun Max Shen

    OpenReview.net. Yunhao Liang, Yuan Qu, Jingyuan Yang, Shaochong Lin, and Zuo-Jun Max Shen. 2025. Everyone contributes! incentivizing strategic cooperation in multi-llm systems via sequential public goods games. CoRR, abs/2508.02076. Junwei Liao, Muning Wen, Jun Wang, and Weina...

    2025 arXiv

  3. [2023]

    InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Rep- resentations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5,

    MAESTRO: open-ended environment de- sign for multi-agent reinforcement learning. InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Rep- resentations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5,

    2023

  4. [2024]

    Appworld: A controllable world of apps and people for benchmarking interactive coding agents. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2024, Bangkok, Thailand, August 11-16, 2024, pages 16022–16076. ...

    1973 arXiv

  5. [2025]

    DUO: diverse, uncertain, on-policy query gen- eration and selection for reinforcement learning from human feedback. InThirty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Thirty-Seventh Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Fifteenth Symposium o...

    2025

  6. [2026]

    Jizhou Wu, Jianye Hao, Tianpei Yang, Xiaotian Hao, Yan Zheng, Weixun Wang, and Matthew E

    Group-evolving agents: Open-ended self- improvement via experience sharing.CoRR, abs/2602.04837. Jizhou Wu, Jianye Hao, Tianpei Yang, Xiaotian Hao, Yan Zheng, Weixun Wang, and Matthew E. Taylor

  7. [2340]

    Emre Can Acikgoz, Cheng Qian, Jonas Hübotter, Heng Ji, Dilek Hakkani-Tür, and Gokhan Tur

    IEEE. Emre Can Acikgoz, Cheng Qian, Jonas Hübotter, Heng Ji, Dilek Hakkani-Tür, and Gokhan Tur. 2026. Tool- r0: Self-evolving LLM agents for tool-learning from zero data.CoRR, abs/2602.21320. Fuma Aki, Riku Ikeda, Takumi Saito, Ciaran Regan, and Mizuki Oka. 2024. LLM-POET: evo...

    2026

  8. [3684]

    Michael Dennis, Natasha Jaques, Eugene Vinitsky, Alexandre M

    Association for Computational Linguistics. Michael Dennis, Natasha Jaques, Eugene Vinitsky, Alexandre M. Bayen, Stuart Russell, Andrew Critch, and Sergey Levine. 2020. Emergent complexity and zero-shot transfer via unsupervised environment de- sign. InAdvances in Neural Inform...

    2020 arXiv

  9. [8057]

    Yanjiang Guo, Tony Lee, Lucy Xiaoyang Shi, Jianyu Chen, Percy Liang, and Chelsea Finn

    ijcai.org. Yanjiang Guo, Tony Lee, Lucy Xiaoyang Shi, Jianyu Chen, Percy Liang, and Chelsea Finn. 2026. VLAW: iterative co-improvement of vision-language-action policy and world model.CoRR, abs/2602.12063. Rishi Hazra, Alkis Sygkounas, Andreas Persson, Amy Loutfi, and Pedro Zu...

    2026

  10. [8248]

    Yuchen Huang, Sijia Li, Minghao Liu, Wei Liu, Shi- jue Huang, Zhiyuan Fan, Hou Pong Chan, and Yi R

    IEEE. Yuchen Huang, Sijia Li, Minghao Liu, Wei Liu, Shi- jue Huang, Zhiyuan Fan, Hou Pong Chan, and Yi R. Fung. 2025c. Environment scaling for interactive agentic experience collection: A survey.CoRR, abs/2511.09586. Edward Hughes, Michael D. Dennis, Jack Parker- Holder, Ferya...

    2024

  11. [8975]

    Tongtong Feng, Xin Wang, Zekai Zhou, Ren Wang, Yuwei Zhan, Guangyao Li, Qing Li, and Wenwu Zhu

    Association for Computational Linguistics. Tongtong Feng, Xin Wang, Zekai Zhou, Ren Wang, Yuwei Zhan, Guangyao Li, Qing Li, and Wenwu Zhu. 2026. Evolvingagent: Curriculum self-evolving agent with continual world model for long-horizon tasks.Preprint, arXiv:2502.05907. Xuening ...

    2026 arXiv

Pith tools

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