Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 25 references

Rethinking Self-Evolving Agents: Do We Still Need Prescribed Optimization Pipelines?

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read With a frontier model as optimizer, a self-evolving agent can compose its own improvement procedure online and stay competitive with—and often ahead of—hand-designed pipelines.

desk verdict The contract/meta-policy split is the real contribution; the 12-1-1 headline is a single-run, two-baseline comparison that should be read as suggestive, not definitive. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09629 v1 pith:KHDOHGZH submitted 2026-08-10 cs.AI

Hui Xue , Fan Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords self-evolvingagentsopen-endedoptimizationmeta-policyprescribedpipelinesskillfrontierlanguagemodelsagenticself-improvementcapability-adaptivedesign
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

This paper asks whether a frontier model, acting as the optimizer of a self-evolving agent, still needs a framework-prescribed procedure for how to improve. The authors introduce Open-Ended Optimization (OEO), which keeps the objective, allowed interactions, resource budget, data boundary, and evaluation fixed but lets the optimizer decide which evidence to inspect, what to revise, and when to stop. Across 14 head-to-head comparisons over 8 benchmark–target settings, OEO wins 12, ties 1, and loses 1 by 0.21 percentage points, while using a median of 34.3 percent of the SkillOpt reference target-token budget. A matched single-rewrite control does not explain the gains, and the pattern reverses at medium and weak optimizer capability. The paper's conclusion is that prescribed pipelines are capability-dependent scaffolding: the external optimization contract remains necessary, but a sufficiently capable optimizer can compose the route from feedback to persistent improvement itself.

What carries the argument

The central object is the distinction between the optimization contract and the optimization meta-policy. The optimization contract fixes the objective, permitted interactions, resource budget, data boundary, and frozen evaluation; the optimization meta-policy is the task-specific sequence of evidence gathering, revision, selection, and stopping. OEO is the protocol that keeps the contract and a generic contract-enforcing action interface while leaving the meta-policy to the optimizer, so the only difference from the two baselines is who decides how improvement proceeds.

What would settle it

Hold the optimizer fixed and run OEO against a well-tuned prescribed pipeline on a new benchmark family with several settings; if the prescribed pipeline wins most comparisons within the same target-token budget, the claim that prescription is unnecessary for frontier optimizers fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, under the same external optimization contract, a sufficiently capable optimizer does not need a framework-supplied task-specific improvement procedure to achieve competitive self-evolution. OEO keeps the objective, allowed operations, budget, data boundary, and evaluator fixed, and delegates only the meta-policy—which evidence to inspect, which revision to try, when to stop. With GPT-5.5 as the optimizer, OEO improves every initial skill and beats SkillOpt in 7 of 8 settings and GEPA in 5 of 6, with the only loss by 0.21 percentage points. A one-shot, zero-interaction rewrite does not reproduce the gains, so interaction matters. At medium optimizer capability the result flips and SkillOpt wins, and a weak optimizer cannot act through the unchanged OEO interface; thus delegation is bounded by capability. The paper's positive claim is that prescription is an optional inductive bias or scaffold for weaker optimizers, not a prerequisite for frontier-model self-evolution.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on SkillOpt and GEPA being faithful, representative examples of prescribed pipelines and on the 14 tested benchmark–target settings being enough to generalise about prescription.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hand-crafted task-specific pipelines become an optional inductive bias rather than a prerequisite once the optimizer is sufficiently capable.
  • Framework governance remains external even when the route to improvement is delegated: objectives, permissions, budgets, and evaluation boundaries stay fixed.
  • Designers can follow a capability-adaptive rule: delegate open-ended composition to strong optimizers, and reintroduce structured scaffolding for medium and weak optimizers.
  • Optimization studies should report both the committed trajectory and the selected skill's item-level behavior, because different routes can reach overlapping correct sets.
  • Delegation does not automatically raise resource use; in these runs OEO used about a third of the reference target-interaction token budget.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the efficiency result makes open-ended delegation especially attractive when target-model interaction is expensive; the paper does not perform a cost-benefit analysis, but the token savings point in that direction.
  • Editorial inference: a natural extension is to map capability to optimal scaffolding depth, since the crossover between OEO and SkillOpt between medium and frontier capability suggests a gradient that the paper does not measure.
  • Editorial inference: the path-versus-behavior finding suggests that self-evolution evaluations should routinely report trajectory-level metrics alongside item-level correctness, because final scores alone can miss large differences in how agents learn.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Open-Ended Optimization (OEO), a protocol in which a frontier model acting as the optimizer composes the task-specific improvement process online, while the framework retains control over an external 'optimization contract' (objective, permitted interactions, budget, data boundaries, evaluation). The authors compare OEO against two prescribed pipelines, SkillOpt and GEPA, across 14 head-to-head cells spanning four benchmarks and two target models, reporting 12 wins, 1 tie, and 1 narrow loss (0.21 percentage points), along with a lower realized target-interaction token budget. Additional controls include a one-shot zero-interaction rewrite, a capability ladder showing that SkillOpt outperforms OEO at medium optimizer capability while a weak optimizer is blocked under OEO, and trajectory diagnostics showing that prescription changes the optimization path more consistently than the final evaluated behavior. The paper concludes that prescribed optimization pipelines are capability-dependent scaffolding rather than a prerequisite for frontier optimizers.

Significance. If the empirical pattern is robust, this is a useful conceptual reframing of self-evolving agent design. The separation between an externally governed optimization contract and a delegated task-specific meta-policy provides a clear vocabulary for a design question that is currently fragmented across many systems. The study also includes honest falsifiable controls: the one-shot rewrite shows that a static prior alone does not reproduce interactive gains, and the capability ladder demonstrates a crossover that restricts delegation's scope. The trajectory analysis is a thoughtful attempt to separate process from outcome. However, the headline claim that prescribed pipelines are 'not necessary' currently rests on a small, single-run, two-baseline comparison without released code or data. The qualitative pattern is plausible and worth reporting, but the strength of the categorical conclusion exceeds what the evidence can support without additional variance analysis and baseline validation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Table 2] The central '12 wins, 1 tie, 1 narrow loss' record is based on a single stochastic run per cell, with no seeds, confidence intervals, or significance testing reported in Appendix A.1. Two decisive margins are within a few items: OEO trails GEPA on SearchQA/GPT-5.5 by 0.21 percentage points (about 3 of 1,400 items) and leads GEPA on SearchQA/Qwen by 0.07 percentage points (about 1 item). A single reseeding could flip both cells, turning the claimed record into 10 wins and 3 losses (or similar). The paper should either provide multiple seeds with variance estimates, or explicitly downgrade the win/loss count to a descriptive point estimate and identify which margins are below a meaningful effect size.
  2. [§2.2, Appendix A.2] The general conclusion that prescribed pipelines are 'not necessary' is supported by exactly two instantiations of 'prescribed'—SkillOpt and GEPA—and the paper does not demonstrate that these are run at their official recommended configurations. Appendix A.2 states that GEPA 'disables optional merging' and that the two SpreadsheetBench GEPA cells use a post-hoc matched checkpoint rather than GEPA's native full-budget selection. If optional merging is part of GEPA's default behavior, disabling it could handicap the baseline. The paper should either run both baselines under their documented defaults with released configurations, or narrow the claim explicitly to 'the two pipelines as configured here.' Without this, the categorical framing in Section 5 and the abstract is not supported.
  3. [§5] The abstract's 'not necessary' and Section 5's 'prescribed optimization pipeline is not a prerequisite' are categorical statements, but the evidence spans 4 benchmarks, 2 target models, 2 prescribed methods, and a single run per cell. This is a small, non-random sample, and the paper provides no argument that SkillOpt and GEPA represent the space of prescribed pipelines broadly. The conclusion in Section 7 is appropriately hedged ('Across the tested settings'), but the abstract and discussion go further. I recommend either rewording the abstract and Section 5 to 'not necessary in the tested settings' or 'among the tested pipelines,' or adding an explicit generalization argument (e.g., a survey of pipeline design axes and an argument that these two instantiations cover the extremes).
  4. [§3.3, Table 4] The capability ladder is a valuable control that shows a crossover between medium and frontier optimizers, but it is also based on single runs. The medium-optimizer gap on LiveMath is substantial (9.68 percentage points), so this specific result is less sensitive to sampling noise than the head-to-head margins, but the weak-optimizer 'blocked' outcome and the medium-optimizer gap should still be accompanied by at least a seed or variance indicator (e.g., running the medium optimizer two or three times). Given that the paper's central claim is capability dependence, this table is load-bearing and would benefit from the same robustness treatment as Table 2.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The method name is written inconsistently as 'SKILLOPT', 'SkillOpt', and 'SkillOPT'; please standardize to one capitalization scheme.
  2. [Table 2] The dagger symbol for SpreadsheetBench GEPA cells is explained in the text but not in the table caption or a table footnote; add a footnote so the table is self-contained.
  3. [Figure 2] The right panel shows realized token fractions for OEO and GEPA, but the caption does not explain which bar color corresponds to which method; please add that information to the caption or a legend.
  4. [Appendix A.4, Eq. (2)] In the revision churn definition, if the sum of stepwise edits is zero, the denominator max(...,1) forces churn to be 1−0 = 1, which may be unintuitive; consider defining churn as 0 when no committed revisions occur.
  5. [Footnote 1] The statement 'All GPT-5.5 calls use the GitHub Copilot Responses API' is unusual and may confuse readers; please clarify whether this is a standard API or a specific deployment detail, and if it is relevant to reproducibility, release the exact endpoint and version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central comparison is empirical with shared contracts and falsifiable controls; no fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or definitional identity drives the conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that a sufficiently capable optimizer can compose the route from feedback to persistent improvement without a prescribed pipeline—rests on a controlled empirical comparison, not on a quantity defined by its inputs. OEO, SKILLOPT, and GEPA share the same external contract, initial skill, dataset splits, evaluator, and optimizer-side model (GPT-5.5), so the 12-1-1 headline is not a predetermined consequence of the setup. The one-shot static rewrite control (Table 3) gives a falsifiable check on the alternative explanation that GPT-5.5's prior alone produces the gains, and the capability ladder (Table 4) is a separate intervention rather than a restatement of the definition. The token-efficiency figure uses SKILLOPT's configured budget as a common accounting reference, but outcomes are sealed-split pass rates, not token-accounting identities. The paper explicitly excludes post-hoc SpreadsheetBench GEPA checkpoints from confirmatory counts (Table 2 note and Appendix A.2), which works against rather than toward circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing premise is justified by a self-citation: the SKILLOPT and GEPA citations are prior external systems, not the authors' own uniqueness or ansatz claims. The trajectory diagnostics in Section 4 do report path differences that are partly encouraged by the procedures' definitions (OEO permits unbounded revisions; SKILLOPT restricts to bounded patches), but these are presented as process measurements, not as evidence that the necessity conclusion follows by construction. Overall, the derivation chain is a set of controlled comparisons with separate falsifiable handles, so the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is empty of fitted parameters and invented entities because this is an empirical comparison of protocols, not a theory with derived constants. The load-bearing assumptions are about experimental validity: benchmark sealing, faithful baseline implementation, single-run representativeness, and token accounting comparability.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The sealed final split prevents leakage and the frozen evaluator measures the intended capability.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 and Appendix A.1; if the optimizer can access the final split through pretraining data or tooling, the comparison between OEO and prescribed pipelines is confounded.
  • domain assumption SkillOpt and GEPA are implemented faithfully and at full strength under the shared contract.
    Load-bearing for the comparative conclusion; the paper does not release its exact prompts, initial skills, or runner code, so faithful implementation cannot be checked externally.
  • domain assumption Single completed runs per cell are representative of each procedure's performance.
    Appendix A.2 states each reported score is one run; without repeated seeds the win/loss counts and margins are not statistically supported.
  • domain assumption The token accounting treats API calls as atomic and the configured budgets are directly comparable across methods.
    Used in Section 3.1 and A.2 to compute the median 34.3% target-token fraction; overshoots are said to be small.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rethinking Self-Evolving Agents: Do We Still Need Prescribed Optimization Pipelines?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KHDOHGZH

@misc{pith2026260809629,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rethinking Self-Evolving Agents: Do We Still Need Prescribed Optimization Pipelines?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KHDOHGZH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09629}
}
read the original abstract

Self-evolving agents are usually built around prescribed optimization pipelines: the framework decides how to gather evidence, revise a persistent artifact, select candidates, and stop. We ask whether this task-specific procedure remains necessary when a frontier model acts as the optimizer. We introduce Open-Ended Optimization (OEO), which keeps the objective, permitted interactions, resource budget, data boundary, and evaluation fixed while allowing the optimizer to compose the improvement process online. We compare OEO with two complementary prescribed approaches: SkillOpt, a staged pipeline with bounded edits, and GEPA, a reflective evolutionary search. Across 14 head-to-head comparisons over 8 benchmark-target-model settings, GPT-5.5-driven OEO records 12 wins, 1 tie, and 1 narrow loss of 0.21 percentage points. It uses a median 34.3 percent of SkillOpt's configured target-interaction token budget. A one-shot, zero-interaction control shows that the gains are not explained by a single prior-driven rewrite. However, delegation has a capability boundary: SkillOpt outperforms OEO with a medium optimizer, and a weak optimizer cannot operate through the unchanged OEO interface. In the fully instrumented OEO-SkillOpt pair, trajectory analysis further shows that prescription changes how optimization proceeds more consistently than it changes final behavior. Together, these findings recast prescribed pipelines as capability-dependent scaffolding: essential constraints remain external, but a sufficiently capable optimizer can compose the route from measurable feedback to persistent improvement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09629 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Where should optimization responsibility live? Both designs share the same external optimization contract. A prescribed pipeline fixes the task-specific improvement process in advance; OEO lets a frontier optimizer compose that process online. Delegating this procedure does not remove framework governance. The framework must still fix the objective, permitted interactions, resource budget, data boundary, and evaluat… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Relative performance and target-interaction use. Left: sealed-score differences between OEO and all 8 SKILLOPT cells and the 6 confirmatory GEPA cells; deltas use unrounded pass rates. Right: realized target-interaction token use as a fraction of the configured SKILLOPT reference budget; the dashed line marks 100%. SpreadsheetBench GEPA diagnostics are omitted. Performance across complementary comparators. The margi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Path divergence does not imply divergent evaluated behavior. The first 3 columns are OEO minus SKILLOPT committed-path metrics and share a common color scale; all differences are positive. The final columns show pass/fail agreement and correct-set Jaccard (JC ) between selected skills [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Edward Berman, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    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

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    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:2305.16291, 2023. 9

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Le, Denny Zhou, and Xinyun Chen

    Chengrun Yang, Xuezhi Wang, Yifeng Lu, Hanxiao Liu, Quoc V . Le, Denny Zhou, and Xinyun Chen. Large Language Models as Optimizers. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Promptbreeder: Self-Referential Self-Improvement via Prompt Evolution

    Chrisantha Fernando, Dylan Banarse, Henryk Michalewski, Simon Osindero, and Tim Rocktäschel. Promptbreeder: Self-Referential Self-Improvement via Prompt Evolution. arXiv:2309.16797, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Differentiation

    Mert Yuksekgonul, Federico Bianchi, Joseph Boen, Sheng Liu, Zhi Huang, Carlos Guestrin, and James Zou. TextGrad: Automatic “Differentiation” via Text. arXiv:2406.07496, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Automated Design of Agentic Systems

    Shengran Hu, Cong Lu, and Jeff Clune. Automated Design of Agentic Systems. arXiv:2408.08435, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    AFlow: Automating Agentic Workflow Generation

    Jiayi Zhang, Jinyu Xiang, Zhaoyang Yu, Fengwei Teng, Xionghui Chen, Jiaqi Chen, Mingchen Zhuge, Xin Cheng, Sirui Hong, Jinlin Wang, Bingnan Zheng, Bang Liu, Yuyu Luo, and Chenglin Wu. AFlow: Automating Agentic Workflow Generation. arXiv:2410.10762, 2024

    arXiv

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    Agrawal, Shangyin Tan, Dilara Soylu, Noah Ziems, Rishi Khare, Krista Opsahl- Ong, Arnav Singhvi, Herumb Shandilya, Michael J

    Lakshya A. Agrawal, Shangyin Tan, Dilara Soylu, Noah Ziems, Rishi Khare, Krista Opsahl- Ong, Arnav Singhvi, Herumb Shandilya, Michael J. Ryan, Meng Jiang, Christopher Potts, Koushik Sen, Alexandros G. Dimakis, Ion Stoica, Dan Klein, Matei Zaharia, and Omar Khattab. GEPA: Refle...

    2026

  2. [10]

    Truly Self-Improving Agents Require Intrinsic Metacognitive Learning

    Tennison Liu and Mihaela van der Schaar. Truly Self-Improving Agents Require Intrinsic Metacognitive Learning. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Harnessing Agentic Evolution

    Jiayi Zhang, Yongfeng Gu, Jianhao Ruan, Maojia Song, Yiran Peng, Zhiguang Han, Jinyu Xiang, Zhitao Wang, Caiyin Yang, Yixi Ouyang, Bang Liu, Chenglin Wu, and Yuyu Luo. Harnessing Agentic Evolution. arXiv:2605.13821, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Bayesian-Agent: Posterior-Guided Skill Evolution for LLM Agent Harnesses

    Xiaojun Wu, Cehao Yang, Honghao Liu, Xueyuan Lin, Wenjie Zhang, Zhichao Shi, Xuhui Jiang, Chengjin Xu, Jia Li, and Jian Guo. Bayesian-Agent: Posterior-Guided Skill Evolution for LLM Agent Harnesses. arXiv:2606.08348, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  5. [13]

    SkillOS: Learning Skill Curation for Self- Evolving Agents

    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 Agen...

    2026 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Hypothesis-Driven Skill Optimization for LLM Agents

    Fangxin Shang and Yehui Yang. Hypothesis-Driven Skill Optimization for LLM Agents. arXiv:2606.22330, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  7. [15]

    SkillAudit: Ground-Truth-Free Skill Evolution via Paired Trajectory Auditing

    Haowen Gao, Haoran Chen, Can Wang, Shasha Guo, Liang Pang, Zhaoyang Liu, Huawei Shen, and Xueqi Cheng. SkillAudit: Ground-Truth-Free Skill Evolution via Paired Trajectory Auditing. arXiv:2606.14239, 2026

    2026

  8. [16]

    SkillOpt: Executive Strategy for Self-Evolving Agent Skills

    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:2605.23904, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  9. [17]

    SkillOpt: Training Skills Like Weights

    Microsoft. SkillOpt: Training Skills Like Weights. Official project repository, 2026. GitHub

    2026

  10. [18]

    SkillOpt-Lite: Better and Faster Agent Self-evolution via One Line of Vibe

    Yifei Shen, Bo Li, and Xinjie Zhang. SkillOpt-Lite: Better and Faster Agent Self-evolution via One Line of Vibe. arXiv:2607.03451, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  11. [19]

    GPT-5.5 System Card

    OpenAI. GPT-5.5 System Card. Technical report, 2026. Official system card

    2026

  12. [20]

    Qwen3.5: Towards Native Multimodal Agents

    Qwen Team. Qwen3.5: Towards Native Multimodal Agents. Model release and technical overview, 2026. Official release

    2026

  13. [21]

    Ugur Guney, V olkan Cirik, and Kyunghyun Cho

    Matthew Dunn, Levent Sagun, Mike Higgins, V . Ugur Guney, V olkan Cirik, and Kyunghyun Cho. SearchQA: A New Q&A Dataset Augmented with Context from a Search Engine. arXiv:1704.05179, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    SpreadsheetBench: Towards Challenging Real World Spreadsheet Manipulation

    Zeyao Ma, Bohan Zhang, Jing Zhang, Jifan Yu, Xiaokang Zhang, Xiaohan Zhang, Sijia Luo, Xi Wang, and Jie Tang. SpreadsheetBench: Towards Challenging Real World Spreadsheet Manipulation. arXiv:2406.14991, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    OfficeQA Pro: An Enterprise Benchmark for End-to-End Grounded Reasoning

    Krista Opsahl-Ong, Arnav Singhvi, Jasmine Collins, Ivan Zhou, Cindy Wang, Ashutosh Baheti, Owen Oertell, Jacob Portes, Sam Havens, Erich Elsen, Michael Bendersky, Matei Zaharia, and 10 Xing Chen. OfficeQA Pro: An Enterprise Benchmark for End-to-End Grounded Reasoning. arXiv:26...

    2026

  16. [24]

    OfficeQA: Repository and benchmark documentation

    Databricks. OfficeQA: Repository and benchmark documentation. Official project repository,

  17. [25]

    LiveMathematicianBench: A Live Benchmark for Mathematician-Level Reasoning with Proof Sketches

    Linyang He, Qiyao Yu, Hanze Dong, Baohao Liao, Xinxing Xu, Micah Goldblum, Jiang Bian, and Nima Mesgarani. LiveMathematicianBench: A Live Benchmark for Mathematician-Level Reasoning with Proof Sketches. arXiv:2604.01754, 2026. A Detailed Experimental Protocol A.1 Benchmarks, s...

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.