Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 102 references

Self-evolution is conditional: it helps mid-capability agents most, hurts weak agents, and works best in single-domain streams.

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

2026-08-04 01:07 UTC pith:TTBHFXIC

load-bearing objection Useful streaming-evaluation framework, but the evolution-gain baseline is confounded with each method's static prompt, so the headline capability-gating claims are weaker than they look. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.00155 v1 pith:TTBHFXIC submitted 2026-07-31 cs.AI

AgentStream: How Well Do Self-Evolving LLM Agents Perform Under Streaming Tasks?

Dong Yan , Jian Liang , Dapeng Hu , Ran He , Nicholas Jing Yuan , Qi Zhang , Tieniu Tan This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords self-evolving agentsstreaming evaluationtest-time learningLLM agentsagentic benchmarksevolution gainmodel capabilitytask streams
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 the value of self-evolving LLM agents cannot be assessed in isolated single-task evaluations, because how much an agent improves from its own experience depends jointly on the structure of the task stream, the capability of the base model, and the architecture of the evolving method. To make this case, it builds AgentStream, a framework that feeds tasks from six agentic benchmarks into three streaming scenarios — Isolated, Sequential, and Interleaved — and runs five representative self-evolving methods on three frontier models. Across that grid, it finds that self-evolution is not uniformly beneficial: the weakest model loses accuracy under all scenarios, a mid-tier model gains more than a stronger one, no method wins everywhere, and, contrary to the expectation that more mixing is harder, the heavily mixed Interleaved stream generally beats the ordered Sequential stream. A sympathetic reader would care because deployed agents experience task streams, not isolated evaluations, and these results point to concrete rules for when and how to let an agent evolve.

Core claim

AgentStream organizes six agentic benchmarks into configurable task streams and evaluates five self-evolving methods — spanning context, memory, skill, and harness evolution — across three frontier models under three streaming scenarios. The central discovery is that self-evolution is conditional rather than uniformly beneficial. Isolated streams give the most reliable gains (+1.37% average over vanilla, positive in 34/45 configurations), while Sequential and Interleaved are less reliable, and the mixed Interleaved stream outperforms the ordered Sequential stream in 10 of 15 model-method configurations. The benefit is gated by model capability: the weakest model shows negative gains in all t

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the evolution state S_t, updated after every task by an Evolve step that distills the interaction trajectory into persistent experience, and the evolution gain Δ comparing the agent with that state against a vanilla baseline with S = ∅. AgentStream's three streaming scenarios — Isolated (separate state per benchmark), Sequential (one state carried across a fixed benchmark order), and Interleaved (one state over a shuffled cross-domain stream) — vary both the scope and the domain composition of the stream, letting the authors separate within-domain learning, forward transfer, and cross-domain interference. The five methods divide along a single design axis: context-

Load-bearing premise

The ordering of 'model capability' rests solely on the vanilla accuracy of three proprietary models on the authors' own six-benchmark suite, so the capability-gating and non-monotonicity conclusions stand or fall with whether that ordering is stable under another agent framework, prompting strategy, or benchmark selection.

What would settle it

A single counterexample would do: a model with vanilla accuracy below the weakest model in this study that still shows positive average evolution gain under all three streaming scenarios, or a model between the weakest and mid-tier that gains less than both, would falsify the capability-gating and non-monotonic claims as stated.

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

If this is right

  • Self-evolving agents should be evaluated on task streams rather than isolated single tasks; isolated results can overstate or understate the value of evolution.
  • Deployers should not enable self-evolution indiscriminately: below a capability threshold the accumulated experience is mostly noise and can reduce accuracy.
  • The optimal method depends on the stream: context-integrated evolution for within-domain streams, retrieval-based evolution for cross-domain or mixed streams.
  • Method choice should be made per model, since the best method on one model can be the worst on another.
  • For sufficiently capable mid-tier models, self-evolution can improve accuracy without increasing inference cost — in some cases cutting it — while for weak models cost overhead brings no accuracy benefit.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the capability-gating pattern generalizes, self-evolution will tend to widen accuracy gaps between weak and strong agents unless method selection is tuned per model, because the weak get no benefit while strong and mid-tier do.
  • The non-monotonicity suggests an inverted-U: gains are largest where the model has enough successes to seed experience but enough headroom to improve; one testable implication is that a fourth model between the weakest and mid-tier should show an intermediate gain, and a model near saturation should show near-zero gain.
  • The cost results hint that retrieval-based evolution may be the safest default for cost-conscious deployments on mid-tier models, since it improved both accuracy and efficiency there — a claim the paper states for its specific grid but which invites broader testing.
  • The Interleaved-over-Sequential result, if it holds, would mean that domain diversity in a stream is not an obstacle to self-evolution but a source of transferable signal, as long as the method can gate retrieval; this could reshape how continual-learning benchmarks are designed.

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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces AgentStream, an evaluation framework that re-organizes six agentic benchmarks into three streaming scenarios—Isolated, Sequential, and Interleaved—and uses it to measure five self-evolving methods (ACE, A-Mem, ReasoningBank, AutoSkill, Harness) on three proprietary LLMs (GPT-5.4-medium, Gemini 3.1 Pro-medium, Claude Opus 4.7-high). The central quantitative object is the evolution gain of Eq. (1), defined as the performance difference between an agent with an accumulated evolution state and the same agent with St=∅ for all tasks. Based on a 3-model × 5-method × 3-scenario × 6-benchmark grid, the paper reports three main findings: self-evolution is not uniformly beneficial and Isolated is the most reliable scenario; the benefit is gated by model capability and non-monotonic in model strength; and no single method dominates across models and scenarios. The appendix contains per-seed tables, cost analysis, cumulative accuracy dynamics, and full method prompts.

Significance. The proposed framework addresses a real gap: most self-evolving agent evaluations are single-task and independent, while deployment involves continuous task streams. If the empirical regularities hold, the paper would provide useful guidance for method and model selection in streaming settings. The authors have also shipped several reproducibility assets: the code link, per-seed tables, full prompt templates, cumulative dynamics, and cost analysis. However, the headline claims are currently not supported by the experiments as designed: the evolution gain conflates self-evolution with static method-specific prompting, and the headline comparisons lack inferential support. The contribution is therefore conditional on substantial revision rather than being immediately usable.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (1); Table 1; Appendix E] The evolution gain does not isolate self-evolution. Eq. (1) defines Δ = Perf(M,Q,S) − Perf(M,Q,∅), and the text says the baseline solves each task with St=∅. Table 1, however, reports a single vanilla prompt per model rather than a per-method empty-state baseline. The method prompts in Appendix E contain static, method-specific instructions that are present even when the evolution state is empty: the ACE generator tells the agent to “read the playbook carefully and apply relevant strategies,” and AutoSkill tells it to “Use a skill ONLY when it directly matches the current intent... otherwise ignore all retrieved skills.” These instructions can change base behavior independently of accumulated experience. Thus Δ measures the joint effect of the method’s static harness plus self-evolution, not self-evolution alone. Because the scenario ordering, capability gating, and method comparisons in
  2. [Tables 1–3 and 5; §5.1–5.2] The headline ordering claims are made without inferential support. Only three seeds are used, and per-cell standard deviations are large—e.g., Table 1 shows 25.0 points for Gemini 3.1 Pro A-Mem Isolated/BFCL and 28.0 points for Claude Opus 4.7 Harness Sequential/Tau2. In Table 2, the Sequential vs. Interleaved difference in average gain is 0.75 vs. 0.90 percentage points, and the Top-1 rates are 29% vs. 33% across 45 configurations. These margins are far smaller than the observed run-to-run variability. The conclusion that “Interleaved generally outperforms Sequential” (Section 5.1) is not established without paired tests, bootstrap intervals, or substantially more seeds. The same holds for the Isolated advantage. This is load-bearing for the first two takeaways.
  3. [§5.2, Table 3; §7] The capability-gating and non-monotonicity claims rest entirely on an internal, three-point ordering. Model capability is defined by vanilla accuracy on the same six-benchmark suite used to measure evolution gains (45.8, 56.6, 63.9), and only three proprietary models are compared. Section 7 explicitly concedes that different frameworks, prompting strategies, or benchmark selections may alter the relative ordering. With three points, “non-monotonic” is a single reversal (middle model gains more than strongest); it is not evidence for a general gain-capability curve. To make this a central claim, the paper needs either an external capability measure, more models or model sizes along the capability axis, or a statistical test for a peak in the gain–capability relationship. As written, the takeaway overstates what three models on one benchmark suite can show.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Tables 7–8] The cost-analysis evolution gains do not match Table 1. For example, Table 7 reports GPT-5.4 A-Mem Sequential/Interleaved gains of +6.2/+5.6, whereas Table 1 scores imply gains of about +2.5/+4.6 relative to the vanilla 45.8. The cost section says it is based on a single evaluation; please specify the seed and reconcile the numbers with the per-seed tables.
  2. [§4, Implementation Details] Only three random seeds are used, and they shuffle task order while keeping the task set fixed. Please report how the N=50 task subset is drawn, whether the subset is fixed across scenarios, and whether any seed is used for subset selection. This would help assess whether conclusions are robust to task composition.
  3. [§3.1, Eq. (1)] The notation Perf(M,Q,∅) is ambiguous: it is not clear whether the baseline is the vanilla prompt row from Table 1 or the corresponding self-evolving method with an empty evolution state. Clarify the definition and align it with the experimental protocol.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper's claims are empirical measurements against external benchmarks, not derivations that reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

AgentStream is an empirical evaluation paper rather than a derivation. The central quantity, the evolution gain in Eq. (1), is an observed difference in benchmark accuracy, and the reported findings (Isolated most reliable, capability gating, non-monotonicity, no single dominant method) are summaries of measured results on external benchmarks (AppWorld, BFCL, BrowseComp-Plus, HLE, SWE-bench-Verified, Tau2). None of these claims is obtained by substituting a definition into itself or by fitting a parameter and then predicting that same parameter. The model-capability ordering is based on vanilla accuracy on the same benchmark suite, and the paper explicitly acknowledges in Section 7 that this ordering is empirical and may not generalize across frameworks, prompting strategies, or benchmark selections; that is a scope limitation, not a circular derivation. The self-citations present in the references ([24], [38]) are used only as background related work and are not load-bearing for the paper's conclusions. The skeptical concern that the vanilla baseline may not equal each method's empty-state baseline is a validity threat to the interpretation of Δ, but it does not make any claimed result equal to an input by construction; it concerns whether Δ isolates self-evolution from static method prompts, which is a measurement-design issue rather than a circularity. Under the stated criteria, no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's text, so the appropriate score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are experimental design choices: the 50-task subsets, the fixed Sequential order, the embedding model, the unified judge, and the assumption that the three models' vanilla scores define a capability axis. These are hand-chosen constants rather than fitted parameters, and they directly shape the conclusions.

free parameters (5)
  • Subset size N=50 per benchmark = 50
    Chosen by the authors; each task is worth 2% per benchmark, and the observed per-benchmark standard deviations up to +/-36.2 (Table 1) show the resolution is coarse.
  • Sequential benchmark order = AppWorld -> BFCL -> BrowseComp+ -> HLE -> SWE -> Tau2
    A single fixed order; the Sequential-vs-Interleaved comparison may depend on this order, and no alternative orders are tested (Section 4).
  • Number of random seeds = 3
    Only three task-order shuffles are averaged; several per-benchmark stds are large, and no statistical significance testing is performed on the gains.
  • Embedding model for retrieval = all-MiniLM-L6-v2
    Used for all retrieval-based methods (A-Mem, AutoSkill, ReasoningBank); a different embedding model could change retrieval quality and method rankings (Section 4).
  • Judge / user simulator model = GPT-5.4
    All judge models and user simulators are unified to GPT-5.4; this can bias benchmark scores and the self-generated feedback that drives evolution (Section 4).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The five self-evolving methods, as adapted to Exgentic, faithfully represent the original published methods.
    Section 4 states all methods are 'adapted to operate within this framework under a test-time setting'; unfaithful adaptation would invalidate cross-method comparisons.
  • domain assumption Self-generated feedback without ground-truth labels is sufficient to drive meaningful evolution.
    Section 3.1 explicitly assumes no ground-truth labels at test time; if the reflected feedback is noisy or model-dependent, the capability-gating result may be an artifact.
  • ad hoc to paper Vanilla accuracy on the six-benchmark suite is a valid proxy for model capability.
    The authors order GPT-5.4 < Gemini 3.1 Pro < Claude Opus 4.7 using their own vanilla averages; Section 7 concedes this ordering is not universal.
  • ad hoc to paper The three streaming scenarios isolate the intended factors (scope and domain composition) while holding within-benchmark task order fixed.
    Section 3.2 defines the scenarios; the Sequential scenario fixes one benchmark order, so any order-specific effects are not measured.
  • domain assumption Native benchmark scoring pipelines provide an unbiased measure of task success.
    Section 4 says task-level performance is evaluated by each benchmark's native scoring; if those scores are noisy or gameable, downstream aggregation inherits the flaw.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 33539 in / 10454 out tokens · 117447 ms · 2026-08-04T01:07:34.864879+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language model (LLM) agents can self-evolve by continually improving from their own accumulated experience. However, existing studies predominantly adopt independent evaluation. Consequently, the behavior of self-evolving agents in realistic streaming settings, where agents adapt to diverse and complex task streams, remains poorly understood. To address this gap, we introduce AgentStream, a unified framework that evaluates self-evolving agents spanning diverse evolution components by organizing agentic benchmarks into a configurable task stream and instantiating the \texttt{Isolated}, \texttt{Sequential}, and \texttt{Interleaved} streaming scenarios at test time, which progressively vary the scope and domain composition of the stream. Over these scenarios, we combinatorially evaluate five representative self-evolving methods across three frontier foundation models, disentangling how model capability, method architecture, and streaming scenario jointly shape self-evolution. Our results show that self-evolution reliability varies across streaming scenarios, the benefit of self-evolution is gated by model capability and non-monotonic in model strength, and no single method dominates across models and scenarios. These findings offer concrete guidance for selecting self-evolving methods across models and streaming scenarios. Overall, we advocate that self-evolving agents should be evaluated under realistic task streams rather than isolated single-task settings.

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

102 extracted references · 30 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A survey of self-evolving agents: What, when, how, and where to evolve on the path to artificial super intelligence.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2026

    Huan ang Gao, Jiayi Geng, Wenyue Hua, Mengkang Hu, Xinzhe Juan, Hongzhang Liu, Shilong Liu, Jiahao Qiu, Xuan Qi, Qihan Ren, Yiran Wu, Hongru WANG, Han Xiao, Yuhang Zhou, Shaokun Zhang, Jiayi Zhang, Jinyu Xiang, Yixiong Fang, Qiwen Zhao, Dongrui Liu, Cheng Qian, Zhenhailong Wang, Minda Hu, Huazheng Wang, Qingyun Wu, Heng Ji, and Mengdi Wang. A survey of se...

    2026

  2. [2]

    Position: Agentic evolution is the path to evolving llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.00359, 2026

    Minhua Lin, Hanqing Lu, Zhan Shi, Bing He, Rui Mao, Zhiwei Zhang, Zongyu Wu, Xianfeng Tang, Hui Liu, Zhenwei Dai, Xiang Zhang, Suhang Wang, Benoit Dumoulin, and Jian Pei. Position: Agentic evolution is the path to evolving llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.00359, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    A comprehensive survey of self-evolving ai agents: A new paradigm bridging foundation models and lifelong agentic systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.07407, 2025

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Agentic context engineering: Evolving contexts for self-improving language models

    Qizheng Zhang, Changran Hu, Shubhangi Upasani, Boyuan Ma, Fenglu Hong, Vamsidhar Kamanuru, Jay Rainton, Chen Wu, Mengmeng Ji, Hanchen Li, Urmish Thakker, James Zou, and Kunle Olukotun. Agentic context engineering: Evolving contexts for self-improving language models. InProc. ICLR, 2026

    2026

  5. [5]

    Harness updating is not harness benefit: Disentangling evolution capabilities in self-evolving llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.30621, 2026

    MinhuaLin, JunchengWu, ZijunWang, ZhanShi, YisiSang, BingHe, ZewenLiu, TianxinWei, Zongyu Wu, Zhiwei Zhang, Dakuo Wang, Xiang Zhang, Benoit Dumoulin, Cihang Xie, Yuyin Zhou, Suhang Wang, and Hanqing Lu. Harness updating is not harness benefit: Disentangling evolution capabilities in self-evolving llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.30621, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    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. InProc. NeurIPS, 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    Memrl: Self-evolving agents via runtime reinforcement learning on episodic memory

    Shengtao Zhang, Jiaqian Wang, Ruiwen Zhou, Junwei Liao, Yuchen Feng, Zhuo Li, Yujie Zheng, Weinan Zhang, Ying Wen, Zhiyu Li, Feiyu Xiong, Yutao Qi, Bo Tang, and Muning 12 Wen. Memrl: Self-evolving agents via runtime reinforcement learning on episodic memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03192, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Autoskill: Experience-driven lifelong learning via skill self-evolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.01145, 2026

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

    arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Le, Samira Daruki, Xiangru Tang, Vishy Tirumalashetty, George Lee, Mahsan Rofouei, Hangfei Lin, Jiawei Han, Chen-Yu Lee, and Tomas Pfister

    Siru Ouyang, Jun Yan, I-Hung Hsu, Yanfei Chen, Ke Jiang, Zifeng Wang, Rujun Han, Long T. Le, Samira Daruki, Xiangru Tang, Vishy Tirumalashetty, George Lee, Mahsan Rofouei, Hangfei Lin, Jiawei Han, Chen-Yu Lee, and Tomas Pfister. Reasoningbank: Scaling agent self-evolving with reasoning memory. InProc. ICLR, 2026

    2026

  10. [10]

    Memento-skills: Let agents design agents

    Huichi Zhou, Siyuan Guo, Anjie Liu, Zhongwei Yu, Ziqin Gong, Bowen Zhao, Zhixun Chen, Menglong Zhang, Yihang Chen, Jinsong Li, Runyu Yang, Qiangbin Liu, Xinlei Yu, Jianmin Zhou, Na Wang, Chunyang Sun, and Jun Wang. Memento-skills: Let agents design agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.18743, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    Agentic harness engineering: Observability-driven automatic evolution of coding-agent harnesses.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.25850, 2026

    Jiahang Lin, Shichun Liu, Chengjun Pan, Lizhi Lin, Shihan Dou, Zhiheng Xi, Xuanjing Huang, Hang Yan, Zhenhua Han, Tao Gui, et al. Agentic harness engineering: Observability-driven automatic evolution of coding-agent harnesses.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.25850, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    Appworld: A controllable world of apps and people for benchmarking interactive coding agents

    Harsh Trivedi, Tushar Khot, Mareike Hartmann, Ruskin Manku, Vinty Dong, Edward Li, Shashank Gupta, Ashish Sabharwal, and Niranjan Balasubramanian. Appworld: A controllable world of apps and people for benchmarking interactive coding agents. InProc. ACL, 2024

    2024

  13. [13]

    Gonzalez

    Shishir G Patil, Huanzhi Mao, Fanjia Yan, Charlie Cheng-Jie Ji, Vishnu Suresh, Ion Stoica, and Joseph E. Gonzalez. The berkeley function calling leaderboard (BFCL): From tool use to agentic evaluation of large language models. InProc. ICML, 2025

    2025

  14. [14]

    Swe-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues? In Proc

    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 Proc. ICLR, 2024

    2024

  15. [15]

    Humanity’s last exam.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14249, 2025

    Long Phan, Alice Gatti, Ziwen Han, Nathaniel Li, Josephina Hu, Hugh Zhang, Chen Bo Calvin Zhang, Mohamed Shaaban, John Ling, Sean Shi, et al. Humanity’s last exam.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14249, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    τ 2- Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.07982, 2025

    Victor Barres, Honghua Dong, Soham Ray, Xujie Si, and Karthik Narasimhan. τ 2- Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.07982, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Stream- bench: Towards benchmarking continuous improvement of language agents

    Cheng-Kuang Wu, Zhi R Tam, Chieh-Yen Lin, Yun-Nung Chen, and Hung-yi Lee. Stream- bench: Towards benchmarking continuous improvement of language agents. InProc. NeurIPS, 2024

    2024

  18. [18]

    Chi, Chi Wang, Shuo Chen, Fernando Pereira, Wang-Cheng Kang, and Derek Zhiyuan Cheng

    Tianxin Wei, Noveen Sachdeva, Benjamin Coleman, Zhankui He, Yuanchen Bei, Xuying Ning, Mengting Ai, Yunzhe Li, Jingrui He, Ed H. Chi, Chi Wang, Shuo Chen, Fernando Pereira, Wang-Cheng Kang, and Derek Zhiyuan Cheng. Evo-memory: Benchmarking llm agent test-time learning with self-evolving memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.20857, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Openai gpt-5 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03267, 2025

    Aaditya Singh, Adam Fry, Adam Perelman, Adam Tart, Adi Ganesh, Ahmed El-Kishky, Aidan McLaughlin, Aiden Low, AJ Ostrow, Akhila Ananthram, et al. Openai gpt-5 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03267, 2025. 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Gemini 3.1 Pro model card, February 2026

    Google DeepMind. Gemini 3.1 Pro model card, February 2026. URLhttps://deepmind. google/models/model-cards/gemini-3-1-pro/

    2026

  21. [21]

    Introducing Claude Opus 4.7, April 2026

    Anthropic. Introducing Claude Opus 4.7, April 2026. URLhttps://www.anthropic.com/ news/claude-opus-4-7

    2026

  22. [22]

    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, Sahel Sharifymoghaddam, Yanxi Li, Haoran Hong, Xinyu Shi, Xuye Liu, Nandan Thakur, Crystina Zhang, Luyu Gao, Wenhu Chen, and Jimmy Lin. Browsecomp-plus: A more fair and transparent evaluation benchmark of deep-research agent. InProc...

    2026

  23. [23]

    Test-time training with self-supervision for generalization under distribution shifts

    Yu Sun, Xiaolong Wang, Zhuang Liu, John Miller, Alexei Efros, and Moritz Hardt. Test-time training with self-supervision for generalization under distribution shifts. InProc. ICML, 2020

    2020

  24. [24]

    Do we really need to access the source data? source hypothesis transfer for unsupervised domain adaptation

    Jian Liang, Dapeng Hu, and Jiashi Feng. Do we really need to access the source data? source hypothesis transfer for unsupervised domain adaptation. InProc. ICML, 2020

    2020

  25. [25]

    Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks.Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 114(13):3521–3526, 2017

    James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil Rabinowitz, Joel Veness, Guillaume Desjardins, Andrei A Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwinska, et al. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks.Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 114(13):3521–3526, 2017

    2017

  26. [26]

    Gradient episodic memory for continual learning

    David Lopez-Paz and Marc’Aurelio Ranzato. Gradient episodic memory for continual learning. InProc. NeurIPS, 2017

    2017

  27. [27]

    Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters

    Charlie Snell, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, and Aviral Kumar. Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters. InProc. ICLR, 2025

    2025

  28. [28]

    Test-time training on nearest neighbors for large language models

    Moritz Hardt and Yu Sun. Test-time training on nearest neighbors for large language models. InProc. ICLR, 2024

    2024

  29. [29]

    Efficiently learning at test-time: Active fine-tuning of llms

    Jonas Hübotter, Sascha Bongni, Ido Hakimi, and Andreas Krause. Efficiently learning at test-time: Active fine-tuning of llms. InProc. ICLR, 2025

    2025

  30. [30]

    The surprising effectiveness of test-time training for few-shot learning

    Ekin Akyürek, Mehul Damani, Adam Zweiger, Linlu Qiu, Han Guo, Jyothish Pari, Yoon Kim, and Jacob Andreas. The surprising effectiveness of test-time training for few-shot learning. InProc. ICML, 2025

    2025

  31. [31]

    In-place test-time training

    Guhao Feng, Shengjie Luo, Kai Hua, Ge Zhang, Wenhao Huang, Di He, and Tianle Cai. In-place test-time training. InProc. ICLR, 2026

    2026

  32. [32]

    Test-time adaptation for llm agents via environment interaction

    Arthur Chen, Zuxin Liu, Jianguo Zhang, Akshara Prabhakar, Zhiwei Liu, Shelby Heinecke, Silvio Savarese, Victor Zhong, and Caiming Xiong. Test-time adaptation for llm agents via environment interaction. InProc. ICLR, 2026

    2026

  33. [33]

    Test-time learning for large language models

    Jinwu Hu, Zhitian Zhang, Guohao Chen, Xutao Wen, Chao Shuai, Wei Luo, Bin Xiao, Yuanqing Li, and Mingkui Tan. Test-time learning for large language models. InProc. ICML, 2025

    2025

  34. [34]

    Ttrl: Test-time reinforcement learning

    Yuxin Zuo, Kaiyan Zhang, Li Sheng, Shang Qu, Ganqu Cui, Xuekai Zhu, Haozhan Li, Yuchen Zhang, Xinwei Long, Ermo Hua, Biqing Qi, Youbang Sun, Zhiyuan Ma, Lifan Yuan, Ning Ding, and Bowen Zhou. Ttrl: Test-time reinforcement learning. InProc. NeurIPS, 2025. 14

    2025

  35. [35]

    Learn- ing on the job: Test-time curricula for targeted reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.04786, 2025

    Jonas Hübotter, Leander Diaz-Bone, Ido Hakimi, Andreas Krause, and Moritz Hardt. Learn- ing on the job: Test-time curricula for targeted reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.04786, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Learning to discover at test time

    Mert Yuksekgonul, Daniel Koceja, Xinhao Li, Federico Bianchi, Jed McCaleb, Xiaolong Wang, Jan Kautz, Yejin Choi, James Zou, Carlos Guestrin, and Yu Sun. Learning to discover at test time. InProc. ICML, 2026

    2026

  37. [37]

    Collaborative multi-agent test-time reinforcement learning for reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.09667, 2026

    Zhiyuan Hu, Yunhai Hu, Juncheng Liu, Shuyue Stella Li, Yucheng Wang, Zhen Xu, See- Kiong Ng, Anh Tuan Luu, Xinxing Xu, Bryan Hooi, Cynthia Breazeal, and Hae Won Park. Collaborative multi-agent test-time reinforcement learning for reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.09667, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    What if consensus lies? selective-complementary reinforcement learning at test time

    Dong Yan, Jian Liang, Yanbo Wang, Shuo Lu, Ran He, and Tieniu Tan. What if consensus lies? selective-complementary reinforcement learning at test time. InProc. ACL, 2026

    2026

  39. [39]

    Ttsr: Test-time self-reflection for continual reasoning improvement.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.03297, 2026

    Haoyang He, Zihua Rong, Liangjie Zhao, Yunjia Zhao, Lan Yang, and Honggang Zhang. Ttsr: Test-time self-reflection for continual reasoning improvement.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.03297, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Ttcs: Test-time curriculum synthesis for self-evolving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.22628, 2026

    Chengyi Yang, Zhishang Xiang, Yunbo Tang, Zongpei Teng, Chengsong Huang, Fei Long, Yuhan Liu, and Jinsong Su. Ttcs: Test-time curriculum synthesis for self-evolving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.22628, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    Test-time learning with an evolving library.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.14477, 2026

    Weijia Xu, Alessandro Sordoni, Chandan Singh, Zelalem Gero, Michel Galley, Xingdi Yuan, and Jianfeng Gao. Test-time learning with an evolving library.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.14477, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Skills on the fly: Test-time adaptive skill synthesis for llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.16986, 2026

    Jingxing Wang, Chenyu Zhou, Zhihui Fu, Jun Wang, Weiwen Liu, Weinan Zhang, and Jianghao Lin. Skills on the fly: Test-time adaptive skill synthesis for llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.16986, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    Tarse: Test-time adaptation via retrieval of skills and experience for reasoning agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.01241, 2026

    Junda Wang, Zonghai Tao, Hansi Zeng, Zhichao Yang, Hamed Zamani, and Hong Yu. Tarse: Test-time adaptation via retrieval of skills and experience for reasoning agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.01241, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    Agentic plan caching: Test-time memory for fast and cost-efficient llm agents

    Qizheng Zhang, Michael Wornow, Gerry Wan, and Kunle Olukotun. Agentic plan caching: Test-time memory for fast and cost-efficient llm agents. InProc. NeurIPS, 2025

    2025

  45. [45]

    Tame: A trustworthy test-time evolution of agent memory with systematic benchmarking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.03224, 2026

    Yu Cheng, Yongkang Hu, Jiuan Zhou, Yushuo Zhang, Yihang Chen, Huichi Zhou, Mingang Chen, Zhizhong Zhang, Kun Shao, Yuan Xie, and Zhaoxia Yin. Tame: A trustworthy test-time evolution of agent memory with systematic benchmarking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.03224, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    Self-improving llm agents at test-time.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.07841, 2025

    Emre Can Acikgoz, Cheng Qian, Heng Ji, Dilek Hakkani-Tür, and Gokhan Tur. Self-improving llm agents at test-time.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.07841, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Just- in-time reinforcement learning: Continual learning in llm agents without gradient updates

    Yibo Li, Zijie Lin, Ailin Deng, Xuan Zhang, Yufei He, Shuo Ji, Tri Cao, and Bryan Hooi. Just- in-time reinforcement learning: Continual learning in llm agents without gradient updates. InProc. ICML, 2026

    2026

  48. [48]

    Panini: Continual learning in token space via structured memory

    Shreyas Rajesh, Pavan Holur, Mehmet Yigit Turali, Chenda Duan, and Vwani Roychowdhury. Panini: Continual learning in token space via structured memory. InProc. ICML, 2026. 15

    2026

  49. [49]

    Agent-dice: Disentangling knowledge updates via geometric consensus for agent continual learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03641, 2026

    Zheng Wu, Xingyu Lou, Xinbei Ma, Yansi Li, Weiwen Liu, Weinan Zhang, Jun Wang, and Zhuosheng Zhang. Agent-dice: Disentangling knowledge updates via geometric consensus for agent continual learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03641, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    Mssr: Memory-aware adaptive replay for continual llm fine-tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.09892, 2026

    Yiyang Lu, Yu He, Jianlong Chen, and Hongyuan Zha. Mssr: Memory-aware adaptive replay for continual llm fine-tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.09892, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    Learning to continually learn via meta-learning agentic memory designs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.07755, 2026

    Yiming Xiong, Shengran Hu, and Jeff Clune. Learning to continually learn via meta-learning agentic memory designs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.07755, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    Xskill: Continual learning from experience and skills in multimodal agents

    Guanyu Jiang, Zhaochen Su, Xiaoye Qu, and Yi R Fung. Xskill: Continual learning from experience and skills in multimodal agents. InProc. ICML, 2026

    2026

  53. [53]

    Online experiential learning for language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.16856, 2026

    Tianzhu Ye, Li Dong, Qingxiu Dong, Xun Wu, Shaohan Huang, and Furu Wei. Online experiential learning for language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.16856, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  54. [54]

    Adaptive collaboration with humans: Metacognitive policy optimization for multi-agent llms with continual learning

    Wei Yang, Defu Cao, Jiacheng Pang, Muyan Weng, and Yan Liu. Adaptive collaboration with humans: Metacognitive policy optimization for multi-agent llms with continual learning. InProc. ICLR, 2026

    2026

  55. [55]

    Memskill: Learning and evolving memory skills for self-evolving agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.02474, 2026

    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

  56. [56]

    Mem0: Building production-ready ai agents with scalable long-term memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19413, 2025

    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

  57. [57]

    Skillrl: Evolving agents via recursive skill-augmented reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08234, 2026

    Peng Xia, Jianwen Chen, Hanyang Wang, Jiaqi Liu, Kaide Zeng, Yu Wang, Siwei Han, Yiyang Zhou, Xujiang Zhao, Haifeng Chen, Zeyu Zheng, Cihang Xie, and Huaxiu Yao. Skillrl: Evolving agents via recursive skill-augmented reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08234, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    Skillos: Learning skill curation for self-evolving agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.06614, 2026

    Siru Ouyang, Jun Yan, Yanfei Chen, Rujun Han, Zifeng Wang, Bhavana Dalvi Mishra, Rui Meng, Chun-Liang Li, Yizhu Jiao, Kaiwen Zha, Maohao Shen, Vishy Tirumalashetty, George Lee, Jiawei Han, Tomas Pfister, and Chen-Yu Lee. Skillos: Learning skill curation for self-evolving agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.06614, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    Evoskill: Automated skill discovery for multi-agent systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.02766, 2026

    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

  60. [60]

    Yu, Ran Xu, Xiang Li, and Lichao Sun

    Zhiling Yan, Dingjie Song, Hanrong Zhang, Wei Liang, Yuxuan Zhang, Yutong Dai, Lifang He, Philip S. Yu, Ran Xu, Xiang Li, and Lichao Sun. Openskill: Open-world self-evolution for llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.06741, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  61. [61]

    Skillopt: Executive strategy for self-evolving agent skills.arXiv preprint arXiv: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.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.23904, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    Meta-harness: End-to-end optimization of model harnesses.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.28052, 2026

    Yoonho Lee, Roshen Nair, Qizheng Zhang, Kangwook Lee, Omar Khattab, and Chelsea Finn. Meta-harness: End-to-end optimization of model harnesses.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.28052, 2026. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  63. [63]

    Evoconfig: Self-evolving multi-agent systems for efficient autonomous environment configuration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.16489, 2026

    Xinshuai Guo, Jiayi Kuang, Linyue Pan, Yinghui Li, Yangning Li, Hai-Tao Zheng, Ying Shen, Di Yin, and Xing Sun. Evoconfig: Self-evolving multi-agent systems for efficient autonomous environment configuration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.16489, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  64. [64]

    Selaur: Self evolving llm agent via uncertainty-aware rewards

    Dengjia Zhang, Xiaoou Liu, Lu Cheng, Yaqing Wang, Kenton Murray, and Hua Wei. Selaur: Self evolving llm agent via uncertainty-aware rewards. InProc. PAKDD, 2026

    2026

  65. [65]

    Kakade, and Yilun Du

    Guowei Xu, Zhenting Qi, Huangyuan Su, Weirui Ye, Himabindu Lakkaraju, Sham M. Kakade, and Yilun Du. Self-improving language models with bidirectional evolutionary search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.28814, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  66. [66]

    Tool-r0: Self-evolving llm agents for tool-learning from zero data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.21320, 2026

    Emre Can Acikgoz, Cheng Qian, Jonas Hübotter, Heng Ji, Dilek Hakkani-Tür, and Gokhan Tur. Tool-r0: Self-evolving llm agents for tool-learning from zero data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.21320, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    Rein- forcing chain-of-thought reasoning with self-evolving rubrics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.10885, 2026

    Leheng Sheng, Wenchang Ma, RuixinHong, Xiang Wang, An Zhang, and Tat-Seng Chua. Rein- forcing chain-of-thought reasoning with self-evolving rubrics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.10885, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    Metagen: Self-evolving roles and topologies for multi-agent llm reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.19290, 2026

    Yimeng Wang, Jiaxing Zhao, Hongbin Xie, Hexing Ma, Yuzhen Lei, Shuangxue Liu, Xuan Song, Zichen Zhang, and Haoran Zhang. Metagen: Self-evolving roles and topologies for multi-agent llm reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.19290, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  69. [69]

    Self-evolving multi-agent collaboration networks for software development

    Yue Hu, Yuzhu Cai, Yaxin Du, Xinyu Zhu, Xiangrui Liu, Zijie Yu, Yuchen Hou, Shuo Tang, and Siheng Chen. Self-evolving multi-agent collaboration networks for software development. InProc. ICLR, 2025

    2025

  70. [70]

    Sew: Self-evolving agentic workflows for automated code generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.18646, 2026

    Siwei Liu, Jinyuan Fang, Han Zhou, Yingxu Wang, and Zaiqiao Meng. Sew: Self-evolving agentic workflows for automated code generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.18646, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  71. [71]

    Evotool: Self-evolving tool-use policy optimization in llm agents via blame-aware mutation and diversity-aware selection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.04900, 2026

    Shuo Yang, Soyeon Caren Han, Xueqi Ma, Yan Li, Mohammad Reza Ghasemi Madani, and Eduard Hovy. Evotool: Self-evolving tool-use policy optimization in llm agents via blame-aware mutation and diversity-aware selection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.04900, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  72. [72]

    Alexander Novikov, Ngân V˜ u, Marvin Eisenberger, Emilien Dupont, Po-Sen Huang, Adam Zsolt Wagner, Sergey Shirobokov, Borislav Kozlovskii, Francisco J. R. Ruiz, Ab- bas Mehrabian, M. Pawan Kumar, Abigail See, Swarat Chaudhuri, George Holland, Alex Davies, Sebastian Nowozin, Pushmeet Kohli, and Matej Balog. Alphaevolve: A coding agent for scientific and al...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Evotest: Evolutionary test-time learning for self-improving agentic systems

    Yufei He, Juncheng Liu, Yue Liu, Yibo Li, Tri Cao, Zhiyuan Hu, Xinxing Xu, and Bryan Hooi. Evotest: Evolutionary test-time learning for self-improving agentic systems. InProc. ICLR, 2026

    2026

  74. [74]

    Building self-evolving agents via experience-driven lifelong learning: A framework and benchmark.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.19005, 2026

    Yuxuan Cai, Yipeng Hao, Jie Zhou, Hang Yan, Zhikai Lei, Rui Zhen, Zhenhua Han, Yutao Yang, Junsong Li, Qianjun Pan, Tianyu Huai, Qin Chen, Xin Li, Kai Chen, Bo Zhang, Xipeng Qiu, and Liang He. Building self-evolving agents via experience-driven lifelong learning: A framework and benchmark.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.19005, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  75. [75]

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

    2025

  76. [76]

    Your agent may misevolve: Emergent risks in self-evolving llm agents

    Shuai Shao, Qihan Ren, Chen Qian, Boyi Wei, Dadi Guo, Jingyi Yang, Xinhao Song, Linfeng Zhang, Weinan Zhang, Dongrui Liu, and Jing Shao. Your agent may misevolve: Emergent risks in self-evolving llm agents. InProc. ICLR, 2026. 17

    2026

  77. [77]

    Webshop: Towards scalable real-world web interaction with grounded language agents

    Shunyu Yao, Howard Chen, John Yang, and Karthik Narasimhan. Webshop: Towards scalable real-world web interaction with grounded language agents. InProc. NeurIPS, 2022

    2022

  78. [78]

    Xu, Hao Zhu, Xuhui Zhou, Robert Lo, Abishek Sridhar, Xianyi Cheng, Tianyue Ou, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, Uri Alon, and Graham Neubig

    Shuyan Zhou, Frank F. Xu, Hao Zhu, Xuhui Zhou, Robert Lo, Abishek Sridhar, Xianyi Cheng, Tianyue Ou, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, Uri Alon, and Graham Neubig. Webarena: A realistic web environment for building autonomous agents. InProc. ICLR, 2024

    2024

  79. [79]

    Webvoyager: Building an end-to-end web agent with large multimodal models

    Hongliang He, Wenlin Yao, Kaixin Ma, Wenhao Yu, Yong Dai, Hongming Zhang, Zhenzhong Lan, and Dong Yu. Webvoyager: Building an end-to-end web agent with large multimodal models. InProc. ACL, 2024

    2024

  80. [80]

    Osworld: Benchmarking multimodal agents for open-ended tasks in real computer environments

    Tianbao Xie, Danyang Zhang, Jixuan Chen, Xiaochuan Li, Siheng Zhao, Ruisheng Cao, Toh Jing Hua, Zhoujun Cheng, Dongchan Shin, Fangyu Lei, Yitao Liu, Yiheng Xu, Shuyan Zhou, Silvio Savarese, Caiming Xiong, Victor Zhong, and Tao Yu. Osworld: Benchmarking multimodal agents for open-ended tasks in real computer environments. InProc. NeurIPS, 2024

    2024

Showing first 80 references.