Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 51 references

MSCE converts agent experience into evidence-backed callable skills and outperforms prior memory and skill agents on long-horizon benchmarks.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 20:23 UTC pith:DPT2KCFA

load-bearing objection The MSCE framework is a genuinely useful synthesis — but the paper's 'significantly outperforms' is not backed by the reported numbers. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.16621 v1 pith:DPT2KCFA submitted 2026-07-18 cs.CL

From Memory to Skills: Evidence-Grounded Co-Evolution Governance for Long-Horizon LLM Agents

Bo Tang , Yang Zhang , Guomian Zhuang , Wenqiang Wei , Gaoyang Zheng , Lindong Xie , Yanchao Tan , Feiyu Xiong
show 3 more authors
Qingyu Yang Edward Chung Zhiyu li
This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords memory-skill co-evolutionlong-horizon LLM agentstraining-freeskill crystallizationreflection-weighted value backfillingevidence groundingEvoAgentBenchlifelong learning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that long-horizon LLM agents improve most when their accumulated experience is governed as a three-level memory hierarchy and promoted into callable skills only after it earns positive, evidence-weighted value. It introduces reflection-weighted value backfilling, which spreads sparse terminal feedback across individual steps according to how trustworthy each step's self-reflection is. The resulting trace values drive retrieval, policy induction, environmental abstraction, and skill crystallization without retraining the model. If correct, this gives a training-free recipe for turning raw interaction logs into reusable procedures, cutting redundant exploration while improving success rates on the tested benchmarks.

Core claim

MSCE establishes that memory and skills can co-evolve through a single value signal: each step trace receives V_t = α_t R_i + (1−α_t)γ V_{t+1}, where α_t is estimated from the step's self-reflection and R_i is the episode-level terminal feedback. This couples dense, possibly noisy reflections with sparse, reliable rewards, so only steps that are both globally rewarded and locally interpretable get high value. High-valued, cross-episode policies are then crystallized into skills only if they retain supporting evidence, show positive gain, and remain stable. Across EvoAgentBench's five domains and LoCoMo, the method reports the best or tied-best Pass@1 in every domain, with cost reductions in

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is reflection-weighted value backfilling, a recurrence that distributes a single episode reward R_i backwards through the trace: V_t = α_t R_i + (1−α_t)γ V_{t+1}. The weight α_t is produced by a prompted reflection scorer, and this valued trace is the universal currency that decides which traces become L2 policies, which policies become L3 environmental cognition, and which policies are promoted into verified, callable skills with reliability estimates and evidence anchors.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes the LLM-based reflection scorer and reward quantifier produce trustworthy α_t and R_i; if those prompted numbers are systematically wrong, the value backfill that drives all memory and skill decisions collapses.

What would settle it

Run MSCE on EvoAgentBench with reflection weights α_t replaced by random values in [0,1] (or by a constant 0.5) while keeping all other components unchanged. If Pass@1 stays at the reported level, the reflection-weighting mechanism is not doing the claimed causal work; if it drops substantially, the mechanism is load-bearing.

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

If this is right

  • If MSCE's central claim holds, long-horizon agents can improve across sessions without gradient updates, simply by maintaining governed memory and promoting only evidence-backed, positive-gain procedures into skills.
  • Repeated failure patterns become reusable anti-patterns: the decision-guidance mechanism converts contrastive evidence into prefer/avoid guidance, so later tasks avoid known pitfalls rather than re-discovering them.
  • Cross-domain transfer results imply that procedures learned in one environment carry over to other domains, reducing the need for per-domain experience from scratch.
  • Lifelong evolution results suggest that as accumulated experience grows, success rates keep rising while cost per task eventually falls, supporting a learning-by-using effect.
  • The separation of trace evidence from promoted skills makes each skill auditable: a skill stays linked to the specific traces that support it, so verification and retirement can be grounded in evidence rather than trust.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The design implies that the quality of the reflection scorer is the real bottleneck: if α_t is systematically biased, the whole value backfill is biased, so gains could degrade on backbones whose self-reflections are less faithful. A natural test is to replace α_t with random weights and measure Pass@1.
  • The same value-backfill recurrence could serve other credit-assignment settings where terminal rewards are sparse, such as robotics trajectory learning or multi-turn dialogue optimization, since it only requires per-step reflections and final feedback.
  • The paper's reliance on prompted operators (reflection scoring, reward quantification, policy induction, L3 abstraction, skill drafting) means reproducibility depends on prompt stability; the authors' own Limitations section concedes these outputs may still be noisy or sensitive to model and prompt choices.
  • If the framework generalizes, the distinction between memory and skill dissolves into a promotion ladder: memory is evidence, skills are deployed policies, and governance is value. That reframing could shape future agent architectures that treat experience as a continuously auditable resource.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MSCE, a training-free memory-skill co-evolution framework for long-horizon LLM agents. It maintains a three-level memory (L1 traces, L2 procedural policies, L3 environmental cognition) and promotes evidence-backed L2 policies with positive estimated gain into callable, verifiable skills. A reflection-weighted value backfilling rule (Eq. 2) propagates sparse terminal feedback through step-level self-reflections, producing trace values that govern retrieval, policy induction, skill crystallization, and skill lifecycle. Experiments on EvoAgentBench and LoCoMo compare MSCE against memory-based and trajectory-to-skill baselines, with ablations, cross-domain transfer, and lifelong-evolution analyses. The paper claims that MSCE "significantly outperforms" state-of-the-art baselines and releases code at a public repository.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, MSCE is a useful contribution: it cleanly separates evidence, procedure, and environmental knowledge; it offers a governed skill-promotion mechanism with deterministic verification; and it is training-free, making it easy to adopt. Strengths include a clearly specified pipeline, detailed prompt templates, a component-level ablation design, and a public code link. The cross-domain and lifelong-evolution results are interesting and go beyond a single benchmark. However, the central empirical claim of "significantly outperforms" is not yet supported because no uncertainty quantification is reported, and several headline margins are small. The prompted operators that supply alpha and R are also unvalidated and share a model family with the LoCoMo judge. With added variance reporting and operator validation, this could be a solid system paper.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2, Tables 1–2, Appendix D.1] The abstract and conclusion say MSCE "significantly outperforms" baselines, but Tables 1 and 2 report only point estimates of Pass@1, judge score, and cost. Appendix D.1 states that standard error is computed across tasks, yet no standard error, confidence interval, number of trials/seeds, or significance test appears anywhere. This matters because the margins are modest: on LoCoMo the overall judge score improves by +2.01 and F1 by +1.18 over SkillFlow-Evolve, and on EvoAgentBench Code is a tie (61.54) with EvoSkill. Without variance estimates, the observed differences could be within task-level noise. Please report per-task SEs/CIs, trial counts, seeds, and significance tests, or explicitly soften the "significant" claim.
  2. [§4.4, Eq. (2), Appendices B.3 and E.1, Limitations] The value backfill and policy gain depend entirely on alpha_t (reflection scorer) and R_i (reward quantification), both produced by prompted GPT-4o operators. The LoCoMo evaluation also uses a GPT-4o judge, so the same model family generates the training signal and scores the result. The Limitations section concedes that these operators "may still be noisy or sensitive to model and prompt choices." If alpha or R are systematically biased, the governance signal degrades and the reported gains may not reproduce. I ask for validation: compare alpha against human labels or an oracle, compare R_i against verifier rewards on domains where they exist, and ablate the judge model family on LoCoMo. Without this, the mechanism's causal story is not established.
  3. [§5.4, Table 3] The ablation results are single point estimates with no variance or repeated trials. The claim that "all components contribute" rests on differences of a few points, e.g., w/o L3 vs full MSCE on Code (58.97 vs 61.54), w/o Value Calibration on KW (50.00 vs 53.45), and w/o Reflection Weighting on IR (21.54 vs 26.15). Given the small margins and absence of uncertainty, the component-level conclusions are not yet robust. Please provide confidence intervals or at least multiple seeds for the ablations.
  4. [§3 and §5.1] The stated training objective is cumulative reward sum R_i, but the main evaluation metric is Pass@1, a thresholded success indicator. Since R_i itself is produced by an LLM reward quantifier (Appendix B.3), any systematic correlation between the quantifier and the task success criterion can inflate reported gains without reflecting actual task success. The paper should report the correlation between R_i and the binarized verifier reward, or evaluate a version that uses only verifier rewards on domains where they exist (IR, Math, SE, Code). This would strengthen the link between the training signal and the evaluation metric.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Author affiliation] The affiliation contains a typo: "MemT ensor" should be "MemTensor". Several "T able" instances in the text should be "Table".
  2. [§5.1 Baselines] Memento is listed as a baseline but is not described in Related Work; a one-sentence description and explicit reference would help readers understand what it does.
  3. [Figure 2] The right y-axis (Delta Cost %) is not clearly associated with the bar/line legend. Please state explicitly that bars use the left axis and the line uses the right axis.
  4. [Table 6] Many hyperparameters (theta_G, theta_sim, theta_edge, reliability thresholds) are listed without sensitivity analysis. Even a brief statement of which are most influential would help assess robustness.
  5. [Appendix D.1] The statement "standard error computed across tasks" should be accompanied by the actual values in the main tables, or at least referenced in the main text when reporting results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: MSCE's internal value/backfill equations define its governance signals, while the reported benchmark results come from external task rewards and LLM judging, not from those equations.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical system paper rather than a derivation, and no load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs. Equation (2) (reflection-weighted value backfilling) and Equation (1) (policy gain) define internal governance signals used to promote, retrieve, or retire memory/skills; they are not used to derive the reported Pass@1 or LoCoMo scores, which come from task-specific external rewards and a GPT-4o judge. No parameter is fitted to the reported outcome and then renamed as a prediction. The reward quantification and reflection scoring prompts are auxiliary operators, but the paper explicitly labels the resulting values and gains as heuristic signals ('not causal credit-assignment estimates') in the Limitations section, so there is no overclaim that would require circular support. The references to prior memory/skill frameworks are contextual and not load-bearing, and I find no self-citation uniqueness theorem or ansatz-smuggling chain. Using GPT-4o both as an auxiliary operator and as the LoCoMo judge is a possible evaluation-bias concern, but it is not a circularity of the derivation; the central empirical superiority claim is independently checkable against external benchmark rewards and baselines. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

MSCE is a system framework, not a physical theory, so the invented_entities list is empty. The central claims rely heavily on free hyperparameters and on the fidelity of LLM-based scoring/quantification operators. The paper's own Limitations section explicitly acknowledges that these operators can be noisy and that gains are heuristic, which we capture in the axioms above.

free parameters (8)
  • gamma (γ) = 0.9
    Discount factor in reflection-weighted value backfilling (Eq. 2). Controls how much future value is inherited; chosen by hand.
  • vmin (minimum trace value for L2 association) = 0.1
    Traces with V < 0.1 are excluded from policy induction; this threshold shapes what evidence enters L2.
  • tau_V (τV) = 0.5
    Temperature in softmax-weighted mean of with-side gain (Eq. 4). Influences policy gain scores.
  • N0 (pseudocount) and b (shrinkage anchor) = 5, 0.5
    Used in the without-side aggregate (Eq. 5) to shrink toward a conservative baseline; hand-chosen.
  • theta_G (θG) = 0
    Gain threshold for skill promotion. With θG=0, any positive gain makes a policy eligible, which is a strong assumption.
  • Reward weights (wg, wp, wu) = 0.45, 0.30, 0.25
    Weights in terminal reward quantification (Appendix B.3). Specify relative importance of goal, process, and satisfaction.
  • L3 admission thresholds (θsim, θedge) = 0.62, 0.34
    Similarity thresholds for cohort admission and merging in environmental cognition abstraction; hand-set.
  • Skill lifecycle thresholds (θactive_η, θarchive_η) = 0.6, 0.2
    Reliability thresholds that decide when a skill becomes active or archived.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Reflection scoring prompt Πreflexion_score yields faithful and informative α_t values.
    Equation (2) uses α_t to determine how much terminal reward is attributed to each step. The paper's Limitations concedes that prompted LLM operators 'may still be noisy or sensitive to model and prompt choices.' If α_t is biased, all downstream values and skill decisions are miscalibrated.
  • domain assumption Reward quantification Πreward converts textual feedback into a correct scalar R_i.
    Used in every episode without a numeric environment reward (Section 4.4, Appendix B.3). Any bias in this conversion propagates to the entire memory update.
  • ad hoc to paper Policy gain G (Eq. 1) is a useful proxy for the true causal effectiveness of a policy.
    G compares average trace values with and without a policy, but the paper itself says it is 'a heuristic signal rather than a causal effect estimate' (Limitations). The skill-promotion gate uses this heuristic, so the whole crystallization procedure rests on this assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Hand-tuned hyperparameters (Table 6) generalize across environments.
    The paper states 'These values are not intrinsic to MSCE and can be tuned for different environments.' If they were tuned on EvoAgentBench, the reported numbers may not transfer to other settings.
  • domain assumption EvoAgentBench and LoCoMo are valid and representative benchmarks for long-horizon agent capabilities.
    All empirical claims are measured on these two benchmarks. If these benchmarks are biased or do not reflect deployment conditions, the significance of the results is limited.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22082 in / 10617 out tokens · 105962 ms · 2026-08-01T20:23:26.973429+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Existing memory systems for long-horizon LLM agents often retrieve prior traces as passive context rather than converting them into executable capabilities. In this paper, we propose MSCE, a training-free Memory--Skill Co-Evolution framework that organizes agent experience into grounded step traces, reusable procedural policies, and declarative environmental cognition. MSCE crystallizes evidence-backed L2 policies with positive estimated gain into callable skills that retain evidence links, applicability boundaries, decision guidance, verification rules, and reliability estimates. It further introduces reflection-weighted value backfilling, which propagates sparse terminal feedback through dense local self-reflections to produce evidence-calibrated trace values for governing memory and skill evolution. Experiments on EvoAgentBench and LoCoMo demonstrate that MSCE significantly outperforms state-of-the-art skill-augmented and memory-driven agent baselines, exhibiting strong cross-domain transferability and lifelong-evolution capabilities.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 15 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Equipping agents for the real world with agent skills, October 2025

    Anthropic. Equipping agents for the real world with agent skills, October 2025. URL https://www.anthropic. com/engineering/equipping-agents-for-the-real-world-with-agent-skills . Engineering at Anthropic

    2025

  3. [3]

    Compress to impress: Unleashing the potential of compressive memory in real-world long-term conversations

    Nuo Chen, Hongguang Li, Jianhui Chang, Juhua Huang, Baoyuan Wang, and Jia Li. Compress to impress: Unleashing the potential of compressive memory in real-world long-term conversations. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 755–773, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    Cua-skill: Develop skills for computer using agent

    Tianyi Chen, Yinheng Li, Michael Solodko, Sen Wang, Nan Jiang, Tingyuan Cui, Junheng Hao, Jongwoo Ko, Sara Abdali, Leon Xu, et al. Cua-skill: Develop skills for computer using agent. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21123, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    Browsecomp-plus: A more fair and transparent evaluation benchmark of deep- research agent

    Zijian Chen, Xueguang Ma, Shengyao Zhuang, Ping Nie, Kai Zou, Andrew Liu, Joshua Green, Kshama Patel, Ruoxi Meng, Mingyi Su, et al. Browsecomp-plus: A more fair and transparent evaluation benchmark of deep- research agent. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.06600, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Mem0: Building production- ready ai agents with scalable long-term memory

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Omni-math: A universal 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, Zhengyang Tang, et al. Omni-math: A universal olympiad level mathematic benchmark for large language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pages 100540–100569, 2025

    2025

  8. [8]

    Internalizing agency from reflective experience

    Rui Ge, Yichao Fu, Yuyang Qian, Junda Su, Yiming Zhao, Peng Zhao, and Hao Zhang. Internalizing agency from reflective experience. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.16843, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Samule: Self-learning agents enhanced by multi-level reflection

    Yubin Ge, Salvatore Romeo, Jason Cai, Monica Sunkara, and Yi Zhang. Samule: Self-learning agents enhanced by multi-level reflection. In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 16602–16621, 2025

    2025

  10. [10]

    Hipporag: Neurobiologically inspired long-term memory for large language models

    Bernal J Gutiérrez, Yiheng Shu, Yu Gu, Michihiro Yasunaga, and Yu Su. Hipporag: Neurobiologically inspired long-term memory for large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 37:59532–59569, 2024

    2024

  11. [11]

    OpenSpace: Make Your Agents: Smarter, Low-Cost, Self-Evolving

    HKUDS. OpenSpace: Make Your Agents: Smarter, Low-Cost, Self-Evolving. https://github.com/HKUDS/ OpenSpace, 2026. Accessed: 2026-05-22

    2026

  12. [12]

    Evermemos: A self-organizing memory operating system for structured long-horizon reasoning

    Chuanrui Hu, Xingze Gao, Zuyi Zhou, Dannong Xu, Yi Bai, Xintong Li, Hui Zhang, Tong Li, Chong Zhang, Lidong Bing, et al. Evermemos: A self-organizing memory operating system for structured long-horizon reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.02163, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  13. [13]

    Livecodebench: Holistic and contamination free evaluation of large language models for code

    Naman Jain, Alex Gu, Wen-Ding Li, Fanjia Yan, Tianjun Zhang, Sida Wang, Armando Solar-Lezama, Koushik Sen, and Ion Stoica. Livecodebench: Holistic and contamination free evaluation of large language models for code. In International Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pages 58791–58831, 2025

    2025

  14. [14]

    Agentic proposing: Enhancing large language model reasoning via compositional skill synthesis

    Zhengbo Jiao, Shaobo Wang, Zifan Zhang, Xuan Ren, Wei Wang, Bing Zhao, Hu Wei, and Linfeng Zhang. Agentic proposing: Enhancing large language model reasoning via compositional skill synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.03279, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    Swe-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues? In International Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pages 54107–54157, 2024

    Carlos E Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik Narasimhan. Swe-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues? In International Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pages 54107–54157, 2024

    2024

  16. [16]

    Memory os of ai agent

    Jiazheng Kang, Mingming Ji, Zhe Zhao, and Ting Bai. Memory os of ai agent. In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 25972–25981, 2025

    2025

  17. [17]

    Skillnet: Create, evaluate, and connect ai skills

    Yuan Liang, Ruobin Zhong, Haoming Xu, Chen Jiang, Yi Zhong, Runnan Fang, Jia-Chen Gu, Shumin Deng, Yun- zhi Yao, Mengru Wang, et al. Skillnet: Create, evaluate, and connect ai skills. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.04448, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    Think-in-memory: Recalling and post-thinking enable llms with long-term memory

    Lei Liu, Xiaoyan Yang, Yue Shen, Binbin Hu, Zhiqiang Zhang, Jinjie Gu, and Guannan Zhang. Think-in-memory: Recalling and post-thinking enable llms with long-term memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08719, 2023. 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Seeing, listening, remembering, and reasoning: A multimodal agent with long-term memory

    Lin Long, Yichen He, Wentao Ye, Yiyuan Pan, Yuan Lin, Hang Li, Junbo Zhao, and Wei Li. Seeing, listening, remembering, and reasoning: A multimodal agent with long-term memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.09736, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback

    Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, Luyu Gao, Sarah Wiegreffe, Uri Alon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, et al. Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:46534–46594, 2023

    2023

  21. [21]

    Eval- uating very long-term conversational memory of llm agents

    Adyasha Maharana, Dong-Ho Lee, Sergey Tulyakov, Mohit Bansal, Francesco Barbieri, and Yuwei Fang. Eval- uating very long-term conversational memory of llm agents. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 13851–13870, 2024

    2024

  22. [22]

    Procmem: Learning reusable procedural memory from experience via non-parametric ppo for llm agents

    Qirui Mi, Zhijian Ma, Mengyue Yang, Haoxuan Li, Yisen Wang, Haifeng Zhang, and Jun Wang. Procmem: Learning reusable procedural memory from experience via non-parametric ppo for llm agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.01869, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    Reasoningbank: Scaling agent self-evolving with reasoning memory

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Gdpval: Evaluating ai model performance on real-world economically valuable tasks

    Tejal Patwardhan, Rachel Dias, Elizabeth Proehl, Grace Kim, Michele Wang, Olivia Watkins, Simón Posada Fish- man, Marwan Aljubeh, Phoebe Thacker, Laurance Fauconnet, et al. Gdpval: Evaluating ai model performance on real-world economically valuable tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.04374, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Autorefine: From trajectories to reusable expertise for continual llm agent refinement

    Libin Qiu, Zhirong Gao, Junfu Chen, Yuhang Ye, Weizhi Huang, Xiaobo Xue, Wenkai Qiu, and Shuo Tang. Autorefine: From trajectories to reusable expertise for continual llm agent refinement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.22758, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    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. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:8634–8652, 2023

    2023

  27. [27]

    H-mem: Hierarchical memory for high-efficiency long-term rea- soning in llm agents

    Haoran Sun, Shaoning Zeng, and Bob Zhang. H-mem: Hierarchical memory for high-efficiency long-term rea- soning in llm agents. In Proceedings of the 19th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 341–350, 2026

    2026

  28. [28]

    Voyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models

    Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Mandlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. Voyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023

    2023

  29. [29]

    Preflect: From retrospective to prospective reflection in large language model agents

    Hanyu Wang, Yuanpu Cao, Lu Lin, and Jinghui Chen. Preflect: From retrospective to prospective reflection in large language model agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.07187, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    Reinforcement learning for self-improving agent with skill library

    Jiongxiao Wang, Qiaojing Yan, Yawei Wang, Yijun Tian, Soumya Smruti Mishra, Zhichao Xu, Megha Gandhi, Panpan Xu, and Lin Lee Cheong. Reinforcement learning for self-improving agent with skill library. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.17102, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Memex (rl): Scaling long-horizon llm agents via indexed experience memory

    Zhenting Wang, Huancheng Chen, Jiayun Wang, and Wei Wei. Memex (rl): Scaling long-horizon llm agents via indexed experience memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.04257, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    Agent workflow memory

    Zora Zhiruo Wang, Jiayuan Mao, Daniel Fried, and Graham Neubig. Agent workflow memory. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 63897–63911. PMLR, 2025

    2025

  33. [33]

    Skillrl: Evolving agents via recursive skill-augmented reinforcement learning

    Peng Xia, Jianwen Chen, Hanyang Wang, Jiaqi Liu, Kaide Zeng, Yu Wang, Siwei Han, Yiyang Zhou, Xujiang Zhao, Haifeng Chen, et al. Skillrl: Evolving agents via recursive skill-augmented reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08234, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    A-mem: Agentic memory for llm agents

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Autoskill: Experience-driven lifelong learning via skill self-evolution

    Yutao Yang, Junsong Li, Qianjun Pan, Bihao Zhan, Yuxuan Cai, Lin Du, Jie Zhou, Kai Chen, Qin Chen, Xin Li, et al. Autoskill: Experience-driven lifelong learning via skill self-evolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.01145, 2026. 12

    arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    G-memory: Tracing hierarchical memory for multi-agent systems

    Guibin Zhang, Muxin Fu, Kun Wang, Guancheng Wan, Miao Yu, and Shuicheng YAN. G-memory: Tracing hierarchical memory for multi-agent systems. In The Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

  37. [37]

    Memgen: Weaving generative latent memory for self-evolving agents

    Guibin Zhang, Muxin Fu, and Shuicheng Yan. Memgen: Weaving generative latent memory for self-evolving agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.24704, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Memskill: Learning and evolving memory skills for self-evolving agents

    Haozhen Zhang, Quanyu Long, Jianzhu Bao, Tao Feng, Weizhi Zhang, Haodong Yue, and Wenya Wang. Memskill: Learning and evolving memory skills for self-evolving agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.02474, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    Retroagent: From solving to evolving via retrospective dual intrinsic feedback

    Xiaoying Zhang, Zichen Liu, Yipeng Zhang, Xia Hu, and Wenqi Shao. Retroagent: From solving to evolving via retrospective dual intrinsic feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.08561, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Skillflow: Benchmarking lifelong skill discovery and evolution for autonomous agents

    Ziao Zhang, Kou Shi, Shiting Huang, A very Nie, Yu Zeng, Yiming Zhao, Zhen Fang, Qishen Su, Haibo Qiu, Wei Yang, et al. Skillflow: Benchmarking lifelong skill discovery and evolution for autonomous agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.17308, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    Expel: Llm agents are experiential learners

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

    2024

  42. [42]

    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. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 62138–62160, 2024

    2024

  43. [43]

    Memento: Fine-tuning llm agents without fine-tuning llms

    Huichi Zhou, Yihang Chen, Siyuan Guo, Xue Yan, Kin Hei Lee, Zihan Wang, Ka Yiu Lee, Guchun Zhang, Kun Shao, Linyi Yang, et al. Memento: Fine-tuning llm agents without fine-tuning llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.16153, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Alpine lacks C library xmlsec1

    Wangchunshu Zhou, Yuchen Eleanor Jiang, Peng Cui, Tiannan Wang, Zhenxin Xiao, Yifan Hou, Ryan Cot- terell, and Mrinmaya Sachan. Recurrentgpt: Interactive generation of (arbitrarily) long text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13304, 2023. 13 Appendix A More Related Work A.1 Self-Evolution of LLM Agents Self-evolving LLM agents improve future behavior from past i...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    faithfulness does the reflection match what ACTUALLY happened across THINKING + ACTION + TOOL_CALLS + OUTCOME?

  46. [46]

    causal insight does it identify why the action / tool choice worked or failed? Bonus when it connects the model’s visible THINKING to the resulting action

  47. [47]

    transferability does it surface a lesson useful on a similar future task?

  48. [48]

    I should do better

    concreteness are the details specific (real command names, real error messages, real decisions) rather than generic platitudes like "I should do better"? Rules: - THINKING and TOOL_CALLS are first-class evidence for grading a reflection that ignores a visible thinking chain or misreports a tool call should score LOW on faithfulness. - TOOL_CALLS that erro...

  49. [49]

    goal_achievement

    "goal_achievement" did the agent address what the user ACTUALLY asked? +1.0 every user ask across the exchange was addressed correctly. +0.3 the last ask was addressed well; earlier asks had minor gaps. 0.0 unclear if the user’s ask was met. -0.3 missed a significant portion of what was asked. -1.0 fundamentally wrong answer / caused damage. CRITICAL RULE...

  50. [50]

    process_quality

    "process_quality" +1.0 clean, minimal, correct reasoning across all turns. 0.0 reasonable but not great. 22 -1.0 lots of thrashing, wrong tools, noisy output

  51. [51]

    user_satisfaction

    "user_satisfaction" (from FEEDBACK text tone + trailing user asks) +1.0 thanks / happy / "" / accepts and closes out. +0.3 moves on neutrally to next ask or new topic. 0.0 no emotional signal either way. -0.3 asks for correction ("no, do X instead" / ""). -1.0 hard-stops, expresses frustration. Rules: - If FEEDBACK is empty, infer satisfaction CONSERVATIV...