Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

MemCollab: Cross-Model Memory Collaboration via Contrastive Trajectory Distillation

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-13 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Contrasting trajectories from different LLM agents yields shared memory that lifts both weak and strong models.

desk verdict Solid agent-memory systems paper: contrastive multi-model distillation into shared enforce/avoid constraints actually works on math/code, with honest negative controls; construction still leans on offline verifiers and a strong summarizer. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.23234 v2 pith:NY2DB7WH submitted 2026-03-24 cs.AI cs.LG

Yurui Chang , Yiran Wu , Qingyun Wu , Lu Lin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.LG
keywords LLMagentsmemorycollaborationcontrastivetrajectorydistillationcross-modeltask-awareretrievalmathematicalreasoningcodegenerationheterogeneous
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

Modern agent systems mix models of different sizes and families, yet most memory systems are built from one model's own traces and work poorly when transferred. This paper shows that naive transfer can even hurt the receiving agent, because stored guidance mixes useful task knowledge with the donor's private habits. MemCollab answers by pairing agents on the same problems, contrasting preferred and unpreferred trajectories, and distilling only abstract enforce/avoid constraints that capture shared reasoning invariants while discarding model-specific style. A task-aware, model-aware retriever then feeds each agent only the constraints that match its task category and its own past role in the contrasts. Across math and code benchmarks, the shared bank improves accuracy and shortens reasoning for both weaker and stronger backbones, including cross-family pairs, outperforming single-source and self-contrast memory.

What carries the argument

Contrastive trajectory distillation: for each task, select a preferred trajectory (any correct run, else the strongest model), contrast it with unpreferred runs, and distill pairs of violation patterns and reasoning invariants into normative constraints of the form "enforce ik; avoid vk," stored once in a shared bank and retrieved by task category plus model identity.

What would settle it

Build the bank with preference labels flipped or with a weak summarizer only, then re-run the same heterogeneous agents on MATH500 and HumanEval; if gains vanish or reverse while single-source self-memory still helps, the contrastive claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A single memory bank built by contrasting preferred versus unpreferred trajectories from heterogeneous backbone agents, then storing only abstract enforce/avoid reasoning constraints with task and model labels, can be shared so that both weaker and stronger agents—including different model families—gain accuracy and inference efficiency, whereas naive transfer of one model's memory often degrades the other.

Load-bearing premise

That offline correctness labels and a stronger-model summarizer really extract transferable task-level invariants rather than leftover style or shortcuts from the preferred model or the verifier.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Heterogeneous agent fleets can share one memory bank instead of maintaining per-model memories.
  • Weaker agents can absorb transferable guidance from stronger (or differently trained) agents without copying their stylistic biases.
  • Stronger agents also improve by avoiding failure patterns exposed only in weaker or differently specialized runs.
  • Task-category filtering plus model-aware retrieval is a practical way to keep shared memory low-noise at inference time.
  • Inference can use fewer reasoning turns because the retrieved constraints prune known error branches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same contrast recipe could plug into multi-agent routers or mixture-of-experts systems as a shared soft prior rather than only as prompt memory.
  • Open-ended or preference-only tasks may work if any reliable preference source (human, judge, or proxy reward) replaces the ground-truth indicator used offline.
  • As more heterogeneous models are added, model-aware labels may matter more than bank size, because overlapping failure modes can dilute gains for the closest models.
  • Policy-aware access control on the shared bank would be a natural next systems layer for multi-tenant deployments.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether a single memory bank can be shared across LLM agents with heterogeneous backbone models. It shows that naively transferring memory distilled from one model’s trajectories can hurt another model, and proposes MemCollab: offline construction of abstract enforce/avoid reasoning constraints by contrasting preferred vs unpreferred trajectories from different agents on the same task (Eqs. 2–6, Alg. 1), plus task- and model-aware retrieval at inference (Eqs. 7–11). Experiments on MATH500, GSM8K, MBPP, and HumanEval, with additional cross-family, multi-model, efficiency, and AppWorld results, report consistent accuracy gains and fewer reasoning turns for both weaker and stronger agents relative to vanilla, BoT, Dynamic Cheatsheet, single-source memory, and self-contrast baselines.

Significance. Heterogeneous multi-agent deployments are increasingly common, and most prior agent-memory work is single-agent and model-coupled; framing shared cross-model memory as a first-class problem is timely. The empirical contribution is substantial: multi-benchmark tables, cross-family pairs (Qwen/Llama/Gemma), comparable-scale collaboration, three-model bank stability (Table 3), retrieval and preference/summarizer ablations, seed variance, inference-turn reductions, and an agentic AppWorld setting. MemNCE is correctly presented as an interpretive lens rather than a fitted objective. If the results hold under broader scrutiny of what is distilled, MemCollab is a useful systems recipe for collaborative memory in heterogeneous agent stacks.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (2), Alg. 1; App. D.1–D.2] Section 2.2, Eq. (2) and Alg. 1: preference selection defaults to the strongest model i⋆ (unless it fails and a weaker agent succeeds), and discrepancy summarization is performed by fi⋆ (or another strong summarizer). The central interpretive claim—that contrast isolates task-level invariants s rather than residual strong-model style—therefore depends on this correctness-plus-strong-summarizer pipeline. App. D.1–D.2 show default preference and a 32B summarizer outperform random/reverse preference and weaker summarizers, but do not isolate (i) preferred trajectories that are correct yet stylistically alien to the strong model, or (ii) holding the summarizer fixed while taking preference only from weaker correct trajectories. Without such isolation, gains for weaker agents (e.g., Table 1, Qwen2.5-7B MATH500 52.2%→67.0%) remain consistent with soft distillation of strong-model reasoning und
  2. [Section 2.3, Eqs. (9)–(10); Appendix E] Section 2.3, Eqs. (9)–(10): after task filtering, retrieval retains only entries whose contrast pair involved the target agent (ℓj ∈ {ℓ+m, ℓ−m}). Appendix E correctly distinguishes a shared bank from model-agnostic memory, but the main-text framing (“a single memory system… shared across agents”) can overstate transfer. Please report an ablation that (a) retrieves only same-agent failure patterns (ℓj = ℓ−), (b) only preferred-side invariants (ℓj = ℓ+), and (c) fully model-agnostic retrieval (drop Eq. 10). This is load-bearing for whether collaboration yields a reusable shared resource versus personalized failure notes plus strong-model guidance.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 1; Table 1] Figure 1 and Table 1: report absolute numbers and error bars (or point to App. D.5) in the main figure caption so the “naive transfer can degrade” claim is self-contained without hunting the appendix.
  2. [Section 2.3; Figure 5] Section 2.3 / Table 19: task categorization uses an LLM classifier; a short error analysis (confusion rates by MATH subcategory) would strengthen the motivation for task-aware filtering beyond the JSD plot in Figure 5.
  3. [Section 3.6; Figure 6] Section 3.6 / Figure 6: the case study is helpful, but the main figure is heavily summarized; ensure the appendix full trajectories (Figs. 7–8) are clearly cross-referenced and that memory entries shown are representative rather than cherry-picked.
  4. [Section 4] Related Work: briefly position against multi-agent debate/collaboration and cross-model distillation literature so the novelty of contrastive memory banks (vs. multi-agent decoding) is sharper.
  5. [Appendix F] Limitations (Appendix F) currently only mention policy/governance; also note dependence on offline correctness signals for construction and the cost of multi-agent trajectory collection.
  6. [Section 2.1–2.2; Algorithm 1] Notation: τ(x)i vs τi, and ℓ vs l in Alg. 1, are slightly inconsistent; unify identity labels throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: empirical systems paper evaluated on held-out external benchmarks; MemNCE is interpretive only.

full rationale

MemCollab’s load-bearing claims are empirical: contrastive construction (Eq. 2–6, Alg. 1) plus task/model-aware retrieval improves held-out accuracy and turn efficiency on MATH500, GSM8K, MBPP, HumanEval (and AppWorld/ASQA extensions). Preferred trajectories are selected with an offline correctness indicator I(·) or default to the strongest model; that is a domain assumption about preference labels, not a self-definition of the reported metrics. Distilled entries are abstract enforce/avoid constraints, not re-fitted answers, and inference does not use ground truth. Appendix A’s MemNCE is explicitly a proxy interpretive lens, not a trained objective that forces Table 1–3 numbers. Baselines (BoT, Dynamic Cheatsheet, single-source and self-contrast memory) and ablations (preference rule, summarizer, retrieval budget) are external comparisons, not self-citation uniqueness theorems or fitted-input-as-prediction. No step reduces a claimed prediction to its inputs by construction; residual strong-model style is a validity concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

Load-bearing content is mostly engineering assumptions and offline labeling choices, not new physics-like entities. The central claim rests on: (1) availability of correctness/preference signals during bank construction; (2) the s/b trajectory factorization intuition; (3) fixed retrieval hyperparameters; (4) LLM task classification quality. No large fitted scientific constants; free parameters are method knobs.

free parameters (4)
  • retrieval budget p (top-p memories)
    Set to 3 after non-monotonic ablation (Fig. 3); main results depend on this choice.
  • max contrastive entries K per pair
    Caps how many enforce/avoid rules the summarizer emits; affects bank density and noise.
  • decoding temperature / top-p
    Fixed at 0 / 0.8 for reported runs; trajectory diversity and self-contrast baselines depend on sampling policy.
  • TF-IDF similarity ranking within task filter
    Retrieval ranking function is a design choice; alternatives (embedding, LLM select) underperform in Fig. 4 but remain free design parameters.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper A trajectory factors as task-relevant structure s plus agent-specific bias b, and contrast isolates s into reusable memory m=ψ(s).
    Stated in §2.4 / App. A as interpretive modeling; not independently validated beyond empirical gains.
  • domain assumption Offline indicator I(·) (ground truth answer or executable verifier) correctly labels preferred vs unpreferred trajectories for memory construction.
    Eq. 2 and Alg. 1; required for main math/code banks. Open-ended extension replaces it with model judges/preferences.
  • domain assumption An LLM task classifier assigns categories/subcategories accurately enough that task-aware filtering reduces interference.
    §2.3 and Fig. 5/4; retrieval quality hinges on this filter.
  • standard math Standard contrastive-learning density-ratio intuition (InfoNCE / pairwise contrast) meaningfully describes non-optimized memory distillation.
    App. A cites InfoNCE literature as analogy; not used as a trained loss in experiments.
invented entities (2)
  • Shared cross-model memory bank with preference-pair model-identity labels (ℓ+, ℓ−)
    purpose: Store collaboratively distilled enforce/avoid constraints while enabling model-aware retrieval without fully model-agnostic entries.
    Core data structure of MemCollab (Eq. 6–10); evidence is empirical performance, not external measurement of the bank as a natural object.
  • MemNCE proxy objective
    purpose: Interpret why contrasting preferred vs flawed trajectories yields transferable memory.
    App. A.2 defines L_MemNCE but does not train against it; purely explanatory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MemCollab: Cross-Model Memory Collaboration via Contrastive Trajectory Distillation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NY2DB7WH

@misc{pith2026260323234,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MemCollab: Cross-Model Memory Collaboration via Contrastive Trajectory Distillation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NY2DB7WH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.23234}
}
read the original abstract

LLM agents increasingly rely on memory mechanisms to reuse knowledge from past problem-solving experiences. However, existing methods typically construct memory for a single agent and reuse it with the same underlying model, tightly coupling stored knowledge to model-specific reasoning styles. In heterogeneous deployments, where agents may be instantiated with backbone models of different sizes, architectures, or specializations, this raises a key question: can a single memory system be shared across agents with different backbone models? We find that naive cross-model memory transfer can degrade performance, because stored memories often entangle task-relevant knowledge with model-specific biases. To address this challenge, we propose MemCollab, a collaborative memory framework that builds shared cross-model memory by contrasting reasoning trajectories generated by different model-based agents on the same task. Through this contrastive process, MemCollab distills abstract reasoning constraints that capture shared task-level invariants while suppressing model-specific artifacts. We further introduce a task-aware retrieval mechanism that conditions memory access on task category, ensuring that only relevant constraints are retrieved at inference time. Experiments on mathematical reasoning and code generation benchmarks show that MemCollab consistently improves both accuracy and inference-time efficiency across diverse agents, including settings with different model families. These results demonstrate that collaboratively constructed cross-model memory can serve as a shared reasoning resource for heterogeneous LLM-based agents.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. When Does Memory Help Multi-Trajectory Inference for Tool-Use LLM Agents?

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A unified framework shows inference strategy confounds memory method results in tool-use agents, with reflection helping only under MCTS, within-expansion injection aiding beam search, and atomic facts shortening traj...

  2. System Identification of Lithium-Ion Battery Equivalent Circuit Models Using Ensemble Kalman Inversion

    eess.SY 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Ensemble Kalman inversion achieves accurate parameter estimation with rapid convergence for nonlinear electro-thermal battery models in both simulation and experiments.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 23 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Effective context engineering for ai agents, September 2025

    Anthropic. Effective context engineering for ai agents, September 2025. URL https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/effective-context-engineering- for-ai-agents

    2025

  2. [2]

    Program synthesis with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732, 2021

    Jacob Austin, Augustus Odena, Maxwell Nye, Maarten Bosma, Henryk Michalewski, David Dohan, Ellen Jiang, Carrie Cai, Michael Terry, Quoc Le, et al. Program synthesis with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Evaluating large language models trained on code.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374, 2021

    Mark Chen. Evaluating large language models trained on code.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Dense x retrieval: What retrieval granularity should we use? In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 15159–15177, 2024

    Tong Chen, Hongwei Wang, Sihao Chen, Wenhao Yu, Kaixin Ma, Xinran Zhao, Hongming Zhang, and Dong Yu. Dense x retrieval: What retrieval granularity should we use? In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 15159–15177, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Lift yourself up: Retrieval-augmented text generation with self-memory.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:43780–43799, 2023

    Xin Cheng, Di Luo, Xiuying Chen, Lemao Liu, Dongyan Zhao, and Rui Yan. Lift yourself up: Retrieval-augmented text generation with self-memory.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:43780–43799, 2023

    2023

  6. [6]

    Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16130, 2024

    Darren Edge, Ha Trinh, Newman Cheng, Joshua Bradley, Alex Chao, Apurva Mody, Steven Truitt, Dasha Metropolitansky, Robert Osazuwa Ness, and Jonathan Larson. From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16130, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997, 2(1), 2023

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yixin Dai, Jiawei Sun, Haofen Wang, and Haofen Wang. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997, 2(1), 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Iseeq: Information seeking question generation using dynamic meta-information retrieval and knowledge graphs

    Manas Gaur, Kalpa Gunaratna, Vijay Srinivasan, and Hongxia Jin. Iseeq: Information seeking question generation using dynamic meta-information retrieval and knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 36, pages 10672–10680, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    G-retriever: Retrieval-augmented generation for textual graph understanding and question answering.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:132876–132907, 2024

    Xiaoxin He, Yijun Tian, Yifei Sun, Nitesh Chawla, Thomas Laurent, Yann LeCun, Xavier Bresson, and Bryan Hooi. G-retriever: Retrieval-augmented generation for textual graph understanding and question answering.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:132876–132907, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Acon: Optimizing context compression for long-horizon llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.00615, 2025

    Minki Kang, Wei-Ning Chen, Dongge Han, Huseyin A Inan, Lukas Wutschitz, Yanzhi Chen, Robert Sim, and Saravan Rajmohan. Acon: Optimizing context compression for long-horizon llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.00615, 2025. 10

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Distilling llm agent into small models with retrieval and code tools.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.17612, 2025

    Minki Kang, Jongwon Jeong, Seanie Lee, Jaewoong Cho, and Sung Ju Hwang. Distilling llm agent into small models with retrieval and code tools.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.17612, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Llms get lost in multi-turn conversation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06120, 2025

    Philippe Laban, Hiroaki Hayashi, Yingbo Zhou, and Jennifer Neville. Llms get lost in multi-turn conversation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06120, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:9459–9474, 2020

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks.Advances in neural information processing systems,...

    2020

  9. [17]

    From classification to generation: Insights into crosslingual retrieval augmented icl.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.06595, 2023

    Xiaoqian Li, Ercong Nie, and Sheng Liang. From classification to generation: Insights into crosslingual retrieval augmented icl.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.06595, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Let’s verify step by step

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let’s verify step by step. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    An efficient framework for learning sentence repre- sentations.arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.02893, 2018

    Lajanugen Logeswaran and Honglak Lee. An efficient framework for learning sentence repre- sentations.arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.02893, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Augmented large language models with parametric knowledge guiding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.04757, 2023

    Ziyang Luo, Can Xu, Pu Zhao, Xiubo Geng, Chongyang Tao, Jing Ma, Qingwei Lin, and Daxin Jiang. Augmented large language models with parametric knowledge guiding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.04757, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Enhancing intelligent agents with episodic memory

    Andrew M Nuxoll and John E Laird. Enhancing intelligent agents with episodic memory. Cognitive Systems Research, 17:34–48, 2012

    2012

  14. [22]

    Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding.arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748, 2018

    Aaron van den Oord, Yazhe Li, and Oriol Vinyals. Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding.arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Reasoningbank: Scaling agent self-evolving with reasoning memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25140, 2025

    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

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Memgpt: Towards llms as operating systems

    Charles Packer, Vivian Fang, Shishir_G Patil, Kevin Lin, Sarah Wooders, and Joseph_E Gonza- lez. Memgpt: Towards llms as operating systems. 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Position: Episodic memory is the missing piece for long-term llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06975, 2025

    Mathis Pink, Qinyuan Wu, Vy Ai V o, Javier Turek, Jianing Mu, Alexander Huth, and Mariya Toneva. Position: Episodic memory is the missing piece for long-term llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06975, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A theoretical analysis of contrastive unsupervised representation learning

    Nikunj Saunshi, Orestis Plevrakis, Sanjeev Arora, Mikhail Khodak, and Hrishikesh Khande- parkar. A theoretical analysis of contrastive unsupervised representation learning. InInterna- tional conference on machine learning, pages 5628–5637. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Large language models can be easily distracted by irrelevant context

    Freda Shi, Xinyun Chen, Kanishka Misra, Nathan Scales, David Dohan, Ed H Chi, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. Large language models can be easily distracted by irrelevant context. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 31210–31227. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Dynamic cheatsheet: Test-time learning with adaptive memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07952, 2025

    Mirac Suzgun, Mert Yuksekgonul, Federico Bianchi, Dan Jurafsky, and James Zou. Dynamic cheatsheet: Test-time learning with adaptive memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07952, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Qwen2 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10671, 2(3), 2024

    Qwen Team et al. Qwen2 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10671, 2(3), 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    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. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Mee...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Learning to retrieve in-context examples for large language models

    Liang Wang, Nan Yang, and Furu Wei. Learning to retrieve in-context examples for large language models. InProceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1752–1767, 2024. 11

    2024

  24. [32]

    A-mem: Agentic memory for llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12110, 2025

    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

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Corrective retrieval augmented generation

    Shi-Qi Yan, Jia-Chen Gu, Yun Zhu, and Zhen-Hua Ling. Corrective retrieval augmented generation. 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Memory-r1: Enhancing large language model agents to manage and utilize memories via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.19828, 2025

    Sikuan Yan, Xiufeng Yang, Zuchao Huang, Ercong Nie, Zifeng Ding, Zonggen Li, Xiaowen Ma, Kristian Kersting, Jeff Z Pan, Hinrich Schütze, et al. Memory-r1: Enhancing large language model agents to manage and utilize memories via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508....

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Buffer of thoughts: Thought-augmented reasoning with large language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:113519–113544, 2024

    Ling Yang, Zhaochen Yu, Tianjun Zhang, Shiyi Cao, Minkai Xu, Wentao Zhang, Joseph E Gonzalez, and Bin Cui. Buffer of thoughts: Thought-augmented reasoning with large language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:113519–113544, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Reasonflux: Hierarchical llm reasoning via scaling thought templates.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06772, 2025

    Ling Yang, Zhaochen Yu, Bin Cui, and Mengdi Wang. Reasonflux: Hierarchical llm reasoning via scaling thought templates.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06772, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Generate rather than retrieve: Large language models are strong context generators.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.10063, 2022

    Wenhao Yu, Dan Iter, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Mingxuan Ju, Soumya Sanyal, Chenguang Zhu, Michael Zeng, and Meng Jiang. Generate rather than retrieve: Large language models are strong context generators.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.10063, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Chain-of-note: Enhancing robustness in retrieval-augmented language models

    Wenhao Yu, Hongming Zhang, Xiaoman Pan, Peixin Cao, Kaixin Ma, Jian Li, Hongwei Wang, and Dong Yu. Chain-of-note: Enhancing robustness in retrieval-augmented language models. InProceedings of the 2024 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 14672–...

    2024

  31. [39]

    Tablegpt: Towards unifying tables, nature language and commands into one gpt.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08674, 2023

    Liangyu Zha, Junlin Zhou, Liyao Li, Rui Wang, Qingyi Huang, Saisai Yang, Jing Yuan, Changbao Su, Xiang Li, Aofeng Su, et al. Tablegpt: Towards unifying tables, nature language and commands into one gpt.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08674, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    A survey on the memory mechanism of large language model-based agents

    Zeyu Zhang, Quanyu Dai, Xiaohe Bo, Chen Ma, Rui Li, Xu Chen, Jieming Zhu, Zhenhua Dong, and Ji-Rong Wen. A survey on the memory mechanism of large language model-based agents. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 43(6):1–47, 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    Memorybank: Enhancing large language models with long-term memory

    Wanjun Zhong, Lianghong Guo, Qiqi Gao, He Ye, and Yanlin Wang. Memorybank: Enhancing large language models with long-term memory. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 19724–19731, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Mem1: Learning to synergize memory and reasoning for efficient long-horizon agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.15841, 2025

    Zijian Zhou, Ao Qu, Zhaoxuan Wu, Sunghwan Kim, Alok Prakash, Daniela Rus, Jinhua Zhao, Bryan Kian Hsiang Low, and Paul Pu Liang. Mem1: Learning to synergize memory and reasoning for efficient long-horizon agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.15841, 2025. 12 A Additional Theoretica...

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Core task summarization: Identify and describe the basic type and core challenges of the problem, such as classifying it as a mathematical problem (e.g., solving a quadratic equation), a data structure problem (e.g., array sorting), or an algorithmic problem (e.g., search algorithms)

  36. [44]

    Solution steps description: Outline the general solution steps, including how to define the problem, determine variables, list key equations or constraints, and choose appropriate solving strategies and methods

  37. [45]

    For programming problems, provide base classes or interfaces that can be instantiated to solve specific instances

    General answer template: Based on the above analysis, propose a reusable template or approach that can be widely applied to this type of problem, including possible variables, functions, or class definitions. For programming problems, provide base classes or interfaces that ca...

  38. [46]

    Define symbolic variables or core data structures

  39. [47]

    Express the main constraints, equations, or problem conditions

  40. [48]

    Convert the problem into a canonical or solvable form

  41. [49]

    Apply the appropriate mathematical, algorithmic, or structural method

  42. [50]

    Solve for the required variable(s) or compute the target quantity

  43. [51]

    Table 17: Prompt template for single-model reasoning extraction

    Verify or validate the result using the original constraints or expected outputs. Table 17: Prompt template for single-model reasoning extraction. 23 You are an expert analyst for extracting reusable REASONING MEMORY from contrastive multi-step mathematical reasoning trajector...

  44. [52]

    reusable failure-aware reasoning constraints, and

  45. [53]

    Each extracted strategy must combine: - a trigger (when this strategy should be considered), and - an enforcement rule (what must be enforced or avoided)

    high-level reasoning strategies that characterize correct multi-step mathematical reasoning, expressed using abstract reasoning rules and high-level mathematical forms (rather than problem-specific calculations). Each extracted strategy must combine: - a trigger (when this str...

  46. [54]

    The problem statement

  47. [55]

    The main category (e.g., Algebra, Precalculus, Geometry, Number Theory)

  48. [56]

    Your output must be exactly one subcategory from the allowed list

    A list of allowed subcategories for this category. Your output must be exactly one subcategory from the allowed list. CLASSIFICATION RULES

  49. [57]

    You may NOT output “None”

    You MUST choose exactly one subcategory from the provided list. You may NOT output “None”. You may NOT invent new categories. Only choose from the allowed subcategories provided

  50. [58]

    If the problem clearly matches a subcategory definition, choose it, even if other superficial features appear

  51. [59]

    If a problem fits multiple subcategories, choose the most specific one

  52. [60]

    These rules override all ambiguity

    If a problem matches a special enforcement rule, you MUST apply that rule. These rules override all ambiguity. SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT RULES These rules override ambiguity and enforce consistent labeling: •Polar coordinates, polar–rectangular conversion, parametric coordinates→ Co...

Pith tools

Reviewed July 13, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.