Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 40 references

AgentBrew claims that a fixed weak LLM agent can be made durably better on held-out tasks solely by accumulating environment-validated, student-calibrated notes in a frozen external memory, with no weight updates and no teacher at test time

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 19:42 UTC pith:JSQA4KEV

load-bearing objection Useful training-free distillation recipe whose benchmark gains look real, but the paper's central mechanism claim—that Ralph-Loop recovery validates transferable notes—is not actually tested. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.16851 v1 pith:JSQA4KEV submitted 2026-07-18 cs.AI

AgentBrew: Lifelong Knowledge Brewing from Strong Teachers to Weak LLM Agents

Yangqin Jiang , Chao Huang This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords knowledge brewingLLM agentexternal memorysparse feedbackteacher–student distillationRalph Looplifelong learningsingle-rollout serving
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.

AgentBrew is trying to establish that the ability of a small, fixed LLM agent can grow over time without touching its weights: all learning happens in an external memory of corrective notes. The recipe is to turn every student failure into a teaching event—a stronger teacher writes an abstract, executable rule, and the rule is kept only if the weak student, re-run on the same failed task, actually recovers. At test time the teacher is absent, the memory is frozen, and the student solves each task in one rollout with retrieved notes prepended to its prompt. If this holds, deploying capable agents no longer requires fine-tuning, expert trajectories, labels, or test-time teacher access; it requires only binary pass/fail feedback plus an offline brewing period. The paper's experiments across math, coding, tool-use, and a terminal benchmark show the brewed student matching or beating stronger baselines and sometimes its own teacher.

Core claim

The central claim is that knowledge for an LLM agent is executor-specific: a strong teacher's insight transfers to a weak student only when it is written at the student's operational granularity and certified by the student's own behavior. AgentBrew operationalizes this with a failure-triggered brew–serve loop. On each training task, if the student fails, the teacher drafts a structured note (trigger pattern, corrective rule, minimal steps, anti-pattern, not-applicable-when), the note is staged provisionally, and the student is re-rolled on the same task; only a terminal success from the environment validates and commits the note to an append-only skill-scoped memory. The authors report that

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Ralph Loop, an environment-validation loop named after an iterative fix-the-agent pattern: a teacher-drafted candidate note is placed in a provisional memory slot, the weak student is re-run on the task it just failed, and the note is committed only when the environment returns success. Its job is to convert sparse binary feedback into certified knowledge without trusting either teacher plausibility or student self-judgment. Two complements carry the rest: student-aware synthesis, which prompts the teacher to write at the student's reading level and action granularity, and skill-scoped append-only memory with soft-suppression reranking, which stores validate

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that surviving the Ralph Loop—recovering on the exact task that triggered the failure—certifies a note's usefulness on new tasks, rather than rewarding notes that memorize the failed task.

What would settle it

One decisive check: brew on a MATH train split, then compare held-out accuracy under (a) full notes, (b) notes with trigger_pattern and not_applicable_when stripped, and (c) notes that merely store each brew task's correct answer; if (a) is not clearly above (c) and (b), recovery validates task-specific patches, not transferable rules. The paper's single-note claim of retrieval on 1,200 test tasks with 55.6% success when applied should also be reproducible by retrieving that note through its trigger pattern alone.

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

If this is right

  • If correct, any deployable LLM agent can be upgraded by memory alone, so capability improvements no longer require retraining or weight access.
  • Binary pass/fail feedback plus failure trajectories suffices as a supervision signal, opening the method to environments where only terminal rewards exist.
  • Student-calibrated validation beats teacher-agnostic memory: the ablation replacing the weak student with a strong surrogate during brewing loses accuracy at test time.
  • Single-rollout serving with brewed memory matches or exceeds multi-rollout test-time reflection on coding and tool-use, reducing inference cost.
  • Lifelong accumulation is monotonic: validated notes are append-only and test accuracy scales with training data, so the memory can keep growing across a deployment.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same brew–serve loop is not tied to LLM-specific reasoning—it should transfer to any executor with a pass/fail evaluator, which would let the transferability claim be tested independently of the student model's prior knowledge.
  • Editorial inference: because certification happens on the failed task, the method's value on a new domain will depend on how well the training stream's failure modes cover the test stream's failure modes; a useful stress test is to brew on one skill family and serve on a disjoint one.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's amortized-cost framing suggests treating brewing as a one-time capital expense; teams with API budgets could choose a stronger teacher at brewing time and a cheap student at serving time, a trade-off the authors demonstrate but do not fully formalize.
  • Editorial inference: the Ralph Loop is effectively a form of empirical verification, so one could tie the number of validation rollouts to confidence bounds and stop early, cutting brewing cost.

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. AgentBrew addresses the asymmetric teacher-student setting where a strong teacher LLM is available during an offline brewing phase but only a fixed weak student is deployed, with no weight updates, no test-time teacher access, and only binary pass/fail environment feedback. The method converts student failures into structured notes: on a failed training task, the teacher drafts a corrective note using a student-aware protocol; the Ralph Loop provisionally stages the note and re-rolls the student on the same task, accepting the note only if the student recovers within R_max attempts; a curator deduplicates and appends accepted notes to a skill-scoped external memory. At test time, the frozen memory is retrieved, reranked, and prepended to the student prompt for a single rollout. Evaluation on MATH, GSM8K, MBPP/MBPP+, AppWorld, and Terminal-Bench compares AgentBrew against ReAct, Reflexion, Simple RAG, ExpeL, and ACE, reporting improvements (e.g., MATH 75.96 vs. ACE 73.82; AppWorld Challenge 15.35 vs. Reflexion(k=2) 14.63), plus ablations and a scaling study.

Significance. If the central causal claim—that same-task recovery validates notes that transfer to held-out tasks—holds, this is a practically important result. It offers a training-free recipe for leveraging a strong teacher's interaction experience to improve a fixed weak agent under realistic sparse feedback, and it does so with a clearly specified brew–serve protocol. The paper is commendable for evaluating across three agent scenarios with a common protocol, including ablations, a model-pairing study, a scaling analysis, and a cost-aware real-world case study, and for shipping a public repository. The main risk is that the validation-and-transfer mechanism is not yet proven: the Ralph Loop certifies same-task recovery, and the only aggregate transfer evidence is a single uncontrolled statistic. The results are therefore promising but not yet conclusive.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.4.1, Eq. (2); Algo. 2] Eq. (2) accepts a note whenever the student recovers on the same brewing task within R_max attempts, with the note revised after each failed attempt. Because the student is an LLM and re-rollouts are stochastic, a pass on a later attempt can occur by chance or through the revision search, not because the note caused the recovery. No control condition (re-rolling the same failed task without the staged note, or estimating the no-note success rate) is reported. Without such a control, 'environment-validated' is an overstatement, and R_max also is not reported. I request a paired no-note re-roll comparison on failed training tasks and, ideally, a note-level lift statistic on held-out tasks.
  2. [§3.5] The only quantitative evidence for cross-task transfer is the statement that a single MATH note was retrieved on 1,200 test tasks with 55.6% success when applied. This is not compared with a no-note baseline on the same tasks, and it is not linked to the main accuracies in Table 1, so it cannot support the conclusion that notes produce positive transfer. Moreover, the same subsection claims the brew task's correct result (√576 = 24) is absent from the note, but the Evidence field literally contains 'arrive at 24.' The example therefore contradicts itself and undermines the claim that notes are free of task-specific answers. Provide a systematic per-note transfer analysis and correct the example.
  3. [Table 3] The Full Ralph column reports 28 'Ralph committed tasks' but also 20 'Direct-write tasks,' totaling 48 writes. This is inconsistent with Algo. 1 and the text, which state that every committed note must pass the Ralph Loop. In the w/o Ralph column, direct-write tasks reasonably represent unvalidated curator writes, but in Full Ralph the same category is unexplained; it implies that 20 of 48 notes bypassed environment validation. Define this category precisely or remove it. If unvalidated writes exist in the full system, the paper's central claim that all memory entries are environment-certified is not supported.
  4. [§3.5 / §2.5.3] The claimed transfer mechanism relies on the note schema preventing task-specific patches, but the only worked example already contains the brew task's numeric answer in its Evidence field. This makes the schema's 'no memorization' property questionable. To support the core contribution, the authors should measure transfer at the level of individual notes: for each note (or cluster), compare success rates on test tasks where the note was retrieved versus a matched control set, and report whether these lifts correlate with whether the note passed the Ralph Loop. The current end-to-end gains in Table 1 do not distinguish the proposed validation from simple teacher-authored retrieval augmentation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.5.3 / App. A.1] The rerank weights ρ(n), φ(n), the relative-score floor, the top-k value, the embedding/retrieval model, and R_max are never specified. Please report these hyperparameters; R_max is also central to the overfitting concern in the major comments.
  2. [§3.1 / Table 1] Main results are reported without variance or repeated-seed information. For stochastic LLM rollouts, please provide standard deviations or at least the number of runs; the two-proportion z-test assumes fixed sample sizes that should be stated per benchmark.
  3. [§3.4 / Table 3] The terms 'Ralph committed tasks' and 'Direct-write tasks' need definitions beyond the table; the relationship between 'Total write tasks' and 'Notes in knowledge base' (48 vs. 39 on MATH) should be explained in terms of deduplication.
  4. [§3.6 / Figure 3] The 'Teacher: None' baseline is described as students learning from their own failures, but the caption and text do not clarify whether this uses the same Ralph Loop without a teacher, or no loop at all. Please make the protocol explicit.
  5. [§1, §5] The word 'lifelong' is a stretch given that brewing uses only 1,000 MATH problems, 257 MBPP tasks, and 90 AppWorld training tasks. The scaling study covers up to 2,000 problems and shows a dip at 1,000; please temper the 'lifelong' claim or extend the scaling evidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Ralph Loop validation is an acceptance filter, and cross-task transfer is asserted via separate test-time evidence, not derived from Eq. 2 by construction.

full rationale

AgentBrew's derivation chain is empirical rather than definitional. The objective (Eq. 1) is held-out success, and the brewing loop (Algo. 2, Eq. 2) uses environment reward on the training task as an acceptance filter. This is a selection criterion, not a fitted parameter that is later renamed as a prediction. The paper does not claim that same-task recovery logically entails cross-task transfer; it offers the structured note schema (§2.3.2) and the §3.5 statistic (a note used on 1,200 test tasks) as separate evidence. That evidence is weak or uncontrolled, but it is not circular: the statistic is an external test-time observation, not the same as the Eq. 2 acceptance event. The §3.5 concern about task-specific patches is explicitly acknowledged and addressed with a claim that could, in principle, be falsified. The only self-citation ([3] LightAgent, used alongside external refs [1,2,4]) is not load-bearing. The Ralph Loop is attributed to an external blog [9]; no uniqueness theorem or prior author result is invoked to force the design. Therefore no step in the paper's derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 2 invented entities

The paper has a small set of free hyperparameters (R_max, top-k, rerank constants) that are not reported, and several domain assumptions about the reliability of binary reward and note executability. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • R_max (Ralph Loop re-attempt budget) = not specified in paper; likely 1-3
    This budget controls how many re-rollouts are used to validate a note. It is a hyperparameter that directly affects the trade-off between validation reliability and compute; the paper does not report its value or sensitivity.
  • top-k retrieval count = not specified
    Number of notes prepended to the student's prompt at test time. Not reported in the experimental setup; affects performance and token cost.
  • Rerank weights ρ(n), ϕ(n) and the relative-score floor = not specified
    Equation 3 defines score(n,x) = sim·ρ·ϕ, but the functional forms of ρ (quality score update) and ϕ (frequency penalty) and the soft-suppression floor are not specified. These are hand-designed or potentially tuned.
  • Number of training samples used for brewing = 1,000 (MATH, GSM8K), 257 (MBPP), 90 (AppWorld)
    The paper chooses to brew on only a subset of available training data (e.g., first 1000 MATH problems). This is a pragmatic free choice, but it also means the results are not on the full official train split.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The environment reward R is a sufficient and unbiased signal for note quality.
    The Ralph Loop assumes that if the student recovers on the same task with the note, the note is good. This assumes no reward hacking, no false pass, and that the task distribution at training time is representative of test time.
  • domain assumption A structured JSON note schema is executable by a weak LLM as intended.
    The paper assumes that the teacher's generated 'minimal_steps' and 'corrective_rule' are at a granularity that the weak student can follow. This is motivated by intuition and a single qualitative example, not a systematic verification.
  • domain assumption Skill-scoped memory partitions are stable and non-overlapping.
    The partitioning of memory into skill scopes assumes that a task belongs to exactly one scope and that retrieval from only that scope loses no relevant knowledge. The paper does not analyze cross-scope transfer or routing errors.
  • domain assumption The teacher model (DeepSeek-V3.1) is substantially stronger than the student (Qwen3-14B) on these tasks.
    The entire capability-gap framing depends on this. Table 1 shows the teacher is not even a baseline (teacher-only results are only in the Terminal-Bench case study); the paper claims teacher superiority but does not explicitly report teacher-only accuracy on the six main benchmarks.
invented entities (2)
  • Ralph Loop no independent evidence
    purpose: A validation loop that re-rolls the student on the same task with a provisional note and only commits the note if the student recovers.
    This is a new algorithmic component (credited to a blog post by Huntley) that the paper claims improves knowledge note quality. It is not a physical entity; independent evidence would be the empirical gains, which are present but modest.
  • Student-aware synthesis (three-step protocol) no independent evidence
    purpose: A prompting protocol to make the teacher write notes at the student's operational granularity.
    This is a prompt-engineering method; its independent evidence is the 'w/ Strong Student Knowledge' ablation (worse when notes are not student-calibrated), which supports it.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15050 in / 4327 out tokens · 43571 ms · 2026-08-01T19:42:41.202484+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Deploying LLM agents typically requires a compact test-time student, even if a stronger teacher is available during training. We study knowledge brewing: distilling a teacher's interactive experience into a persistent external memory for the student. Crucially, this requires no weight updates, expert demonstrations, ground-truth labels, or test-time teacher access. This setting poses two challenges: environments provide only sparse, binary feedback, and teacher-authored notes must be inherently tailored to be concretely executable by a substantially weaker student. To address these hurdles, we propose AgentBrew, comprising two coupled components. First, a failure-triggered teacher--Ralph Loop mitigates sparse feedback by transforming student failures into environment-validated notes. Second, student-aware synthesis calibrates teacher knowledge to the weak executor's operational granularity, yielding model-specific, actionable guidance. Extensive evaluations and comprehensive ablations across coding, math, and tool-use tasks demonstrate that this asymmetric, training-free brewing paradigm produces highly capable yet deployable LLM agents.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16851 by Chao Huang, Yangqin Jiang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Accuracy on MATH and GSM8K under different brew-time teacher–student LLM pairings (test student: Qwen3-14B). Strong (S)/weak (W) de￾note DeepSeek-Chat-v3.1 and Qwen3-14B. Existing work addresses only parts of the problem. Self-evolving agents [5, 6] can im￾prove from environment feedback without weight updates, but they usually (i) evolve the same model that both acts and learns, (ii) continue adapting at … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overall framework of the proposed AgentBrew. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Performance on AppWorld test_normal under different teacher–student LLM pairings. (ii) Teacher strength does not strictly dictate transfer success. While strong teachers consis￾tently beat the baseline, optimal teacher–student pairings vary: DeepSeek-Chat-v3.1 pairs best with Qwen3-14B (31.55% vs. 29.8%), while GLM-5.1 pairs best with DeepSeek-Chat-v3.1 (46.4% vs. 44.6%). The smaller gap between teachers o… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scaling on MATH Benchmark. We further ask whether AgentBrew exhibits scal￾ing: as more training trajectories are brewed, does test-time performance improve? We in￾crementally brew on subsets of MATH Dtrain containing 500, 1000, 1500, and 2000 samples, respectively, while keeping all other pipeline settings fixed. For each checkpoint, we freeze the resulting memory M⋆ and evaluate it with Qwen3-14B in a sin… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Test pass rate and cost per task on Terminal-Bench 2.0 (64 test tasks). (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗

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

40 extracted references · 20 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Tora: A tool-integrated reasoning agent for mathematical problem solving

    Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yujiu Yang, Minlie Huang, Nan Duan, Weizhu Chen, et al. Tora: A tool-integrated reasoning agent for mathematical problem solving. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pages 48362–48395, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    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 Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), p...

    2024

  3. [3]

    Lightagent: Mobile agentic foundation models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.22009, 2025

    Yangqin Jiang and Chao Huang. Lightagent: Mobile agentic foundation models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.22009, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Swe-agent: Agent-computer interfaces enable automated software engineering.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:50528–50652, 2024

    John Yang, Carlos E Jimenez, Alexander Wettig, Kilian Lieret, Shunyu Yao, Karthik Narasimhan, and Ofir Press. Swe-agent: Agent-computer interfaces enable automated software engineering.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:50528–50652, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:8634–8652, 2023

    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

  6. [6]

    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. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 19632–19642, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    Structured agent distillation for large language model

    Jun Liu, Zhenglun Kong, Peiyan Dong, Changdi Yang, Tianqi Li, Hao Tang, Geng Yuan, Wei Niu, Wenbin Zhang, Pu Zhao, et al. Structured agent distillation for large language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13820, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Agentdistill: Training-free agent distillation with generalizable mcp boxes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.14728, 2025

    Jiahao Qiu, Xinzhe Juan, Yimin Wang, Ling Yang, Xuan Qi, Tongcheng Zhang, Jiacheng Guo, Yifu Lu, Zixin Yao, Hongru Wang, et al. Agentdistill: Training-free agent distillation with generalizable mcp boxes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.14728, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    software engineer

    Geoffrey Huntley. Ralph wiggum as a “software engineer”. Blog post, 2025. URL https: //ghuntley.com/ralph/. Defines the Ralph Loop: an iterative bash loop feeding a fixed prompt to a coding agent with externalized state (files, git, tests)

    2025

  10. [10]

    Small models struggle to learn from strong reasoners

    Yuetai Li, Xiang Yue, Zhangchen Xu, Fengqing Jiang, Luyao Niu, Bill Yuchen Lin, Bhaskar Ra- masubramanian, and Radha Poovendran. Small models struggle to learn from strong reasoners. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025, pages 25366–25394, 2025

    2025

  11. [11]

    Agentic context engineering: Evolving contexts for self-improving language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.04618, 2025

    Qizheng Zhang, Changran Hu, Shubhangi Upasani, Boyuan Ma, Fenglu Hong, Vamsidhar Ka- manuru, Jay Rainton, Chen Wu, Mengmeng Ji, Hanchen Li, et al. Agentic context engineering: Evolving contexts for self-improving language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.04618, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Unveiling the key factors for distilling chain-of- thought reasoning

    Xinghao Chen, Zhijing Sun, Guo Wenjin, Miaoran Zhang, Yanjun Chen, Yirong Sun, Hui Su, Yijie Pan, Dietrich Klakow, Wenjie Li, et al. Unveiling the key factors for distilling chain-of- thought reasoning. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025, pages 15094–15119, 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    Improved knowledge distillation via teacher assistant

    Seyed Iman Mirzadeh, Mehrdad Farajtabar, Ang Li, Nir Levine, Akihiro Matsukawa, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. Improved knowledge distillation via teacher assistant. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 5191–5198, 2020

    2020

  14. [14]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    Is your code generated by chatgpt really correct? rigorous evaluation of large language models for code generation

    Jiawei Liu, Chunqiu Steven Xia, Yuyao Wang, and Lingming Zhang. Is your code generated by chatgpt really correct? rigorous evaluation of large language models for code generation. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:21558–21572, 2023. 13

    2023

  16. [16]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Qwen2 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10671, 2024

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Zhou, Chengpeng Li, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, et al. Qwen2 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10671, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Deepseek-v3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437, 2024

    Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, et al. Deepseek-v3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2210.03629

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.Iclr, 1(2):3, 2022

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Liang Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.Iclr, 1(2):3, 2022

    2022

  23. [23]

    Glm-5: from vibe coding to agentic engineering

    Aohan Zeng, Xin Lv, Zhenyu Hou, Zhengxiao Du, Qinkai Zheng, Bin Chen, Da Yin, Chendi Ge, Chenghua Huang, Chengxing Xie, et al. Glm-5: from vibe coding to agentic engineering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.15763, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Terminal-bench: Benchmarking agents on hard, realistic tasks in command line interfaces.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.11868, 2026

    Mike A Merrill, Alexander G Shaw, Nicholas Carlini, Boxuan Li, Harsh Raj, Ivan Bercovich, Lin Shi, Jeong Yeon Shin, Thomas Walshe, E Kelly Buchanan, et al. Terminal-bench: Benchmarking agents on hard, realistic tasks in command line interfaces.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.11868, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    Claude code.https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code, 2025

    Anthropic. Claude code.https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code, 2025

    2025

  26. [26]

    Deepseek-v4: Towards highly efficient million-token context intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.19348, 2026

    Anyi Xu, Bangcai Lin, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bingzheng Xu, Bochao Wu, Bowei Zhang, Chaofan Lin, Chen Dong, Chenchen Ling, et al. Deepseek-v4: Towards highly efficient million-token context intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.19348, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36: 68539–68551, 2023

    Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Eric Hambro, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36: 68539–68551, 2023

    2023

  28. [28]

    A survey of self-evolving agents: On path to artificial super intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.21046, 1, 2025

    Huan-ang Gao, Jiayi Geng, Wenyue Hua, Mengkang Hu, Xinzhe Juan, Hongzhang Liu, Shilong Liu, Jiahao Qiu, Xuan Qi, Yiran Wu, et al. A survey of self-evolving agents: On path to artificial super intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.21046, 1, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:46534–46594, 2023

    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

  30. [30]

    V oyager: 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. V oyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Alita: Generalist agent enabling scalable agentic reason- ing with minimal predefinition and maximal self-evolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.20286, 2025

    Jiahao Qiu, Xuan Qi, Tongcheng Zhang, Xinzhe Juan, Jiacheng Guo, Yifu Lu, Yimin Wang, Zixin Yao, Qihan Ren, Xun Jiang, et al. Alita: Generalist agent enabling scalable agentic reason- ing with minimal predefinition and maximal self-evolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.20286, 2025. 14

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Long term memory: The foundation of ai self-evolution

    Xun Jiang, Feng Li, Han Zhao, Jiahao Qiu, Jiaying Wang, Jun Shao, Shihao Xu, Shu Zhang, Weiling Chen, Xavier Tang, et al. Long term memory: The foundation of ai self-evolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15665, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Distilling the knowledge in a neural network

    Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  34. [34]

    Distilling reasoning capabilities into smaller language models

    Kumar Shridhar, Alessandro Stolfo, and Mrinmaya Sachan. Distilling reasoning capabilities into smaller language models. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 7059–7073, 2023

    2023

  35. [35]

    Distilling llm agent into small models with retrieval and code tools.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:106501–106538, 2026

    Minki Kang, Jongwon Jeong, Seanie Lee, Jaewoong Cho, and Sung Ju Hwang. Distilling llm agent into small models with retrieval and code tools.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:106501–106538, 2026

    2026

  36. [36]

    Magdi: Structured distillation of multi-agent interaction graphs improves reasoning in smaller language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01620, 2024

    Justin Chih-Yao Chen, Swarnadeep Saha, Elias Stengel-Eskin, and Mohit Bansal. Magdi: Structured distillation of multi-agent interaction graphs improves reasoning in smaller language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01620, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Sub- goal distillation: A method to improve small language agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02749, 2024

    Maryam Hashemzadeh, Elias Stengel-Eskin, Sarath Chandar, and Marc-Alexandre Cote. Sub- goal distillation: A method to improve small language agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02749, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Fine-tuning with rag for improving llm learning of new skills.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.01375, 2025

    Humaid Ibrahim, Nikolai Rozanov, and Marek Rei. Fine-tuning with rag for improving llm learning of new skills.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.01375, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    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

  40. [40]

    Brew” is Dtrain for note distillation; “Test

    Yujie Zhao, Boqin Yuan, Junbo Huang, Haocheng Yuan, Zhongming Yu, Haozhou Xu, Lanxiang Hu, Abhilash Shankarampeta, Zimeng Huang, Wentao Ni, et al. Ama-bench: Evaluating long- horizon memory for agentic applications.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.22769, 2026. 15 A Appendix / supplemental material A.1 Test-Time Serving Process. Algorithm 3:Test-time serving onD ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026