Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Recursive Synthesis for Long-Horizon Terminal Tasks

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A recursive rewrite loop can manufacture long-horizon terminal tasks whose difficulty climbs without an observed ceiling.

desk verdict A credible recursive task-synthesis pipeline with real transfer gains; the no-ceiling claim is the one piece that goes beyond the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05466 v1 pith:YHEG6MS4 submitted 2026-08-05 cs.AI cs.LG

Zhongzhi Li , Yucheng Shi , Zongxia Li , Ruhan Wang , Anhao Li , Zixun Huang , Junyao Yang , Lei Ke
show 3 more authors
Ninghao Liu Haitao Mi Leowei Liang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.LG
keywords recursivetasksynthesisterminalagentslong-horizontasksverifiedsyntheticdataoraclevaliditycontractverifier-basedreinforcementlearningself-improvement
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

The paper claims that long-horizon terminal-agent training data can be manufactured by a recursive loop instead of human authoring. Starting from verified seed tasks, the loop extends the reference solution, rewrites the verifier and public instruction to match the extended workflow, and accepts a task only if the reference solution passes in a fresh sandbox and every verifier check is stated in or discoverable from the workspace. Across fifteen rounds the loop produced 37,484 accepted tasks at about $0.05 each, with median solution length rising from 67 to 374 lines and DeepSeek-V4-Pro pass@4 (success within four attempts) falling from 90% to 2.5%, indicating that later tasks are genuinely harder. Fine-tuning on trajectories collected from these tasks improved Qwen3.5 models on Terminal-Bench 2, Terminal-Bench Hard, and Long-Horizon Terminal Bench. The significance, if the claim holds, is that expensive human-authored long-horizon tasks can be replaced by a cheap, self-reinforcing generation process that showed no saturation through round 15.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the task bundle and the recursive rewrite loop around it. Each bundle ties together the public instruction, the environment, the reference solution, and the private verifier; the loop selects one of 40 rewrite operators from five families, grows the solution, realigns the verifier and instruction, and validates in a fresh sandbox, accepting only candidates that satisfy oracle validity and contract validity. Accepted tasks seed the next round and simultaneously enter the verifier-based reinforcement-learning task pool, so difficulty compounds across generations. The no-ceiling claim rests on stable per-round yield, stable candidate pass rate, and preserved diversity of domains, rewrite families, and operators.

What would settle it

Have human experts audit a random sample of R15 tasks, matching every verifier check to a statement in the instruction or to workspace-discoverable evidence, and then run the same solver on those tasks with and without the verifier's requirement list added to the instruction; if pass rates jump when requirements are revealed, the difficulty curve is an artifact of task opacity rather than capability growth.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that verified terminal-agent tasks can be synthesized recursively by a solution-first process: take an accepted seed, extend its reference solution with additional executable work, realign the private verifier and public instruction to the new workflow, and validate the full bundle in a fresh sandbox. A task is accepted only when it satisfies oracle validity, meaning the reference solution passes the verifier, and contract validity, meaning every requirement the verifier checks is stated in the instruction or inferable from the workspace. Running this loop for fifteen rounds produced 37,484 accepted tasks from 639 seeds at roughly $0.05 per task, and difficulty rose without an observed ceiling: median solution length grew from 67 to 374 lines, median command count grew from 40 to 244, and DeepSeek-V4-Pro pass@4 fell from 90% at R1 to 2.5% at R15 while synthesis yield and candidate pass rates stayed flat. The paper further claims that training on rejection-sampled trajectories from these tasks transfers to independent benchmarks, with supervised fine-tuning improving both Qwen3.5-27B and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B and verifier-based reinforcement learning lifting Qwen3.5-27B to 49.44%, 32.00%, and 22.07% on Terminal-Bench 2, Terminal-Bench Hard, and Long-Horizon Terminal Bench.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline assumes that its automated instruction-verifier consistency audit has no blind spots, so every verifier check is either stated in the instruction or discoverable from the workspace; if the audit misses hidden requirements, later-round tasks would appear harder mainly because they are more underspecified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Long-horizon terminal-agent data can be produced without human authoring: 37,484 verified tasks at about $0.05 each, with the same loop still productive at round 15.
  • Difficulty scales in executable work rather than prompt length: median solution length grows 5.6x and median command count 6.1x from R1 to R15, while instruction length grows only 1.4x.
  • A fixed solver's success declines monotonically across rounds, from 90% pass@4 at R1 to 2.5% at R15, so the round index acts as a curriculum of increasing task difficulty.
  • Training on trajectories from the synthesized tasks transfers to independent benchmarks, with supervised fine-tuning gains up to 10 points and reinforcement learning lifting Qwen3.5-27B to 49.44% on Terminal-Bench 2, 32.00% on Terminal-Bench Hard, and 22.07% on Long-Horizon Terminal Bench.
  • Because synthesis yield and validation rates remain stable through R15 while difficulty keeps climbing, the recursion shows no observed ceiling and may continue beyond the reported scale.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The no-ceiling observation covers fifteen rounds, not infinite scalability; pushing the loop much further would likely require new rewrite operators or new seed domains to keep the operator taxonomy from saturating.
  • The difficulty curve is only as trustworthy as the automated instruction-verifier consistency audit; an independent human audit of late-round tasks, checking each verifier check against discoverable workspace evidence, would test whether later rounds hide requirements rather than demand more capability.
  • The same bundle-and-realign loop could in principle extend to other verifiable agent domains, such as file-system or database workflows, wherever success can be checked by executable tests; the paper's transfer evidence is limited to terminal benchmarks.
  • A controlled ablation that trains only on early-round versus only on late-round tasks could isolate which rounds drive the benchmark gains, since the paper reports aggregate training across the full pool.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents RST, a recursive verified synthesis framework for constructing long-horizon terminal-agent tasks. Starting from 639 verified seed tasks, RST extends reference solutions, realigns verifier and instruction, validates candidates in fresh sandboxes, and reseeds with accepted tasks. Over fifteen rounds it produces 37,484 tasks at roughly $0.05 each, with median solution length growing from 67 to 374 lines and DeepSeek-V4-Pro pass@4 falling from 90% to 2.5%. The authors report stable synthesis yield, preserved diversity, supervised fine-tuning gains on three external benchmarks, and a verifier-based PPO run on the synthesized task pool. The central claims are scalable low-cost synthesis, consistent downstream training improvement, and no observed ceiling.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper is significant: it demonstrates a low-cost, automated pipeline for generating large numbers of verifiable long-horizon terminal tasks, with oracle validity for every accepted task. The strengths are substantial: the pipeline is described in enough detail to be reproduced, the validation includes static checks, bounded repair, and anti-shortcut audit; the contamination analysis is explicit; structural growth curves (Figures 7-9) are informative; and the SFT results include standard deviations across evaluation runs. The cost figure of ~$0.05 per accepted task, if accurate, would be an important practical advance. However, the strongest claim, that the recursion shows no ceiling and can continue beyond the reported scale, is not supported by the evidence presented, and the RL headline number is internally inconsistent between the conclusion and Table 4.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6 vs. Table 4 and §5.5] The conclusion states that 'Qwen3.5-27B-RL reaches 46.07, 32.00, and 22.07 on the three benchmarks, corresponding to relative gains of 11.82%, 41.16%, and 21.93% over the base model.' Table 4 and Section 5.5 report the same model reaching 49.44, 32.00, and 22.07 with relative gains of 20.00%, 41.16%, and 21.93%. The TB2 value and the corresponding relative gain are inconsistent, and this is a headline number for the training-utility claim. The discrepancy must be resolved and the correct value reported consistently in the abstract, conclusion, and tables.
  2. [§1, §5.1, §6] The 'no observed ceiling' claim extrapolates from 15 rounds. The evidence is per-round yield (498–572 passed per 1,000 seed attempts) and candidate pass rate (74.5–81.5%), but these aggregates are measured on a diversity-capped subset of roughly 1,000 selected seeds per round, not on the full pool, and the selection caps described in Appendix B constrain the process. Figure 22 shows a systematic rise in within-round nearest-neighbor similarity from 0.223 to 0.464, with p95 reaching 0.703; the paper dismisses this as a 'manageable tail' (§5.3) without measuring collapse indicators such as repair counts, shrinkage in operator support, or increasing instruction-verifier drift that passes the LLM audit. Fifteen rounds of stable yield do not distinguish genuine unbounded scaling from the early phase of a slow collapse, so the statement that 'the process can continue well beyond the scale reported here' is not justified. Either remove this claim or support it with direct sustainability evidence, such as a longer-run experiment or an analysis of pre-collapse indicators.
  3. [§3, §4.4, Appendix D.1] The interpretation of the pass@4 decline from 90% to 2.5% as genuine difficulty growth depends on the instruction-verifier consistency audit (contract validity). This audit is performed by the same pipeline LLM through the generation prompts, the consistency-repair step, and the requirement-discoverability rules in Appendix D.1, and it is not independently validated. If the audit has blind spots, later-round tasks could become harder because they are more underspecified or contain hidden requirements, so the difficulty curve would reflect task opacity rather than capability growth. The paper should provide an external check, for example a human annotation of a random sample of R10–R15 tasks verifying that each verifier check is stated in the instruction or discoverable from the workspace, or a second independent LLM audit with disagreement analysis. This is load-bearing for the central difficulty-scaling conclusion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 4] The model name 'Deepseek-V4-Pro' should be written as 'DeepSeek-V4-Pro' for consistency with the rest of the paper.
  2. [Abstract and Table 3] The abstract states fine-tuning improves the Qwen3.5 models 'by up to 10 points'; in Table 3 the only exactly 10-point gain is Terminal-Bench Hard for Qwen3.5-122B-A10B (20.00 to 30.00). Please clarify which combination yields the 10-point gain to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [§5.5] The PPO results are reported as a single training run without standard deviations or multiple seeds, unlike the SFT results in Table 3 which include ±std. Please add a reproducibility statement or multiple-seed results for the RL experiment.
  4. [Figure 1] Figure 1 is visually confusing: the pass-rate axis values (0–50) appear incompatible with the seed pass rates near 70–75. Please correct the axis scale or the caption.
  5. [§5.3, Figure 22] The paper calls the p95 similarity of 0.703 a 'limited high-similarity tail,' but with 37,484 tasks a 5% tail corresponds to thousands of near-duplicate pairs. Please report the absolute number of duplicate-like pairs or a deduplication threshold, rather than relying only on the median.
  6. [§4.1] The sentence 'the 639 bootstrap seeds are not counted as a synthesis round' appears twice in Section 4.1; please remove the duplicate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: difficulty, stability, and transfer results are measured against fixed solvers and external benchmarks; the only self-citation (LHTB) is not load-bearing.

full rationale

RST's central quantities are measured rather than fitted. Task difficulty is defined by fixed-solver pass@4 and partial credit on oracle-validated tasks; the synthesis loop never optimizes those metrics, so the 90% to 2.5% pass@4 decline is an empirical outcome, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The no-ceiling claim is an inductive extrapolation from stable yield and candidate pass rates over 15 rounds; it may be weak evidence, but it is not circular because yield is not defined in terms of the difficulty variables it is said to predict. Training utility is tested on Terminal-Bench 2 and Terminal-Bench Hard, which are independently constructed benchmark suites, and on Long-Horizon Terminal Bench, which is a self-cited benchmark by overlapping authors. The LHTB self-citation is present but not load-bearing: the same qualitative transfer gains also appear on the two external suites, and the paper includes a leakage audit reporting no exact 13-token overlap with any benchmark. The instruction-verifier consistency audit is LLM-based and not independently validated, which is a correctness and robustness risk rather than a circular reduction, because oracle validity is machine-checked by executing the reference solution against the verifier in a fresh sandbox. No equation or fitted constant is reused as its own output, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on hand-set pipeline thresholds (generation-quality gates, diversity caps, repair limits) rather than fitted parameters, and on domain assumptions about seed validity, audit correctness, generator reliability, and the extrapolation from 15 rounds to no ceiling. No new physical or explanatory entities are introduced; the 40-operator taxonomy is a methodological construct, not an explanatory entity.

free parameters (4)
  • Generation-quality thresholds: minimum changed files, solution lines, verifier lines = 3 files / 8 lines / 12 lines
    Hand-set in Appendix D; directly constrain the minimum structural growth per round and therefore shape the reported solution-length and verifier-assertion growth curves. No sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Instruction caps: maximum words and maximum relative length = 180 words / 1.6x parent length
    Hand-set in Appendix D and prompt templates; these limits influence the reported instruction-length growth of 1.4x and the short-instruction risk metric.
  • Seed-selection diversity caps = max 4 descendants per parent, 160 per category, 320 per family, 280 per cohort; target 1000 seeds
    Hand-set in Appendix B; directly shape the diversity statistics in Figures 4 and 18-20 that support the no-collapse claim.
  • Repair-round cap = 2
    Hand-set in Section 4.4 and Appendix D; determines how many invalid candidates are nudged to pass oracle validation and affects the reported candidate pass rate.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption TerminalWorld seed tasks are oracle-valid and representative of real terminal workflows.
    Section 4.1 initializes the pipeline with 639 bootstrap seeds from TerminalWorld [3] and treats them as verified; if the seeds are biased, all synthesized rounds inherit that bias.
  • domain assumption Oracle validity plus the automated consistency audit guarantee task fairness.
    Sections 3 and 4.4 define acceptance this way; the audit in Figures 10-11 is heuristic, and any blind spot would make later-round difficulty an artifact of underspecification rather than genuine complexity.
  • domain assumption DeepSeek-V4-Pro can reliably extend reference solutions and realign verifiers and instructions, and sandbox validation catches broken tasks.
    The entire pipeline is LLM-driven (Appendices B and E); failures are repaired up to two times, so the framework depends on the generator's competence and the validator's fidelity.
  • domain assumption The external benchmarks (TB2, TB-Hard, LHTB) are independent and leakage-free, and the contamination audit in Table 2 is sufficient.
    Section 5.2 uses the audit to rule out task-description leakage; the audit only checks 13-token and 5-gram similarities and cannot fully rule out environment-level or trajectory-level leakage.
  • ad hoc to paper Stable yield and pass rate over 15 rounds imply indefinite scalability (no ceiling).
    The abstract and Section 6 state the no-ceiling conclusion based on empirical stability without a saturation model or statistical test; this is an extrapolation, not a proven property.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Recursive Synthesis for Long-Horizon Terminal Tasks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YHEG6MS4

@misc{pith2026260805466,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Recursive Synthesis for Long-Horizon Terminal Tasks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YHEG6MS4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05466}
}
abstract

High-quality long-horizon training data for terminal agents is expensive to produce, often costing hundreds to thousands of dollars per task, because each task must keep the instruction, environment, reference solution, and verifier mutually consistent. Human authoring does not scale, and direct generation with large language models (LLMs) often breaks these dependencies. We present Recursive Synthetic Terminal Tasks (RST), a recursive verified synthesis framework for constructing long-horizon terminal-agent tasks at scale. Starting from verified seed tasks, RST extends the reference solution, realigns the verifier and instruction to the new workflow, validates the result in a fresh sandbox, and reuses accepted tasks as seeds for subsequent rounds. Across fifteen recursive rounds, RST produces 37,484 synthesized terminal-agent tasks at roughly \$0.05 per task. Task difficulty increases substantially over rounds: the median reference solution grows from 67 to 374 lines, the median number of executed commands grows from 40 to 244, and DeepSeek-V4-Pro pass@4 drops from 90\% at $R_1$ to 2.5\% at $R_{15}$. To demonstrate training utility, we collect rejection-sampled Qwen3.5 trajectories on the synthesized tasks and use them for supervised fine-tuning. Fine-tuning on these trajectories improves Qwen3.5-27B and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B by up to 10 points on Terminal-Bench~2, Terminal-Bench Hard, and Long-Horizon Terminal Bench, while agentic PPO lifts Qwen3.5-27B to 49.44\%, 32.00\%, and 22.07\% on the three benchmarks, corresponding to relative gains of 20.0\%, 41.2\%, and 21.9\% over the base model. Moreover, after 15 rounds, the recursion shows no ceiling: synthesis yield and validation rates remain stable as difficulty keeps climbing, indicating that the process can continue well beyond the scale reported here.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Self-play fine-tuning converts weak language models to strong language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01335, 2024

    Zixiang Chen, Yihe Deng, Huizhuo Yuan, Kaixuan Ji, and Quanquan Gu. Self-play fine-tuning converts weak language models to strong language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01335, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    From language to action: a review of large language models as autonomous agents and tool users.Artificial Intelligence Review, 59(2):71, 2026

    Sadia Sultana Chowa, Riasad Alvi, Subhey Sadi Rahman, Md Abdur Rahman, Mohaimenul Azam Khan Raiaan, Md Rafiqul Islam, Mukhtar Hussain, and Sami Azam. From language to action: a review of large language models as autonomous agents and tool users.Artificial Intelligence Review, 59(2):71, 2026

    work page 2026

  3. [3]

    Barr, Mark Harman, Federica Sarro, and He Ye

    Zhaoyang Chu, Jiarui Hu, Xingyu Jiang, Pengyu Zou, Han Li, Chao Peng, Peter O’Hearn, Earl T. Barr, Mark Harman, Federica Sarro, and He Ye. TerminalWorld: Benchmarking agents on real-world terminal tasks, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2605.22535

    arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    Deepseek-v4: Towards highly efficient million-token context intelligence, 2026

    DeepSeek-AI. Deepseek-v4: Towards highly efficient million-token context intelligence, 2026. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2606.19348

    arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    SWE-Marathon: Can Agents Autonomously Complete Ultra-Long-Horizon Software Work?https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.07682,

    Rishi Desai, Jesse Hu, Ke Huang, Joan Cabezas, Neel Harsola, Pratyush Shukla, Daniel Wang, Xiangyi Li, Roey Ben Chaim, Adnan El Assadi, Omkaar Mukund Kamath, Fenil Faldu, Prannay Hebbar, Jiankai Sun, Yiyuan Li, Pramod Srinivasan, Ishan Gupta, Christopher Settles, Derek Chen, Pranav Raja, Albert Liu, Marek Šuppa, Nevasini Sasikumar, Luyang Kong, Erik Quint...

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    A survey on the optimization of large language model-based agents.ACM Computing Surveys, 58(9):1–37, 2026

    Shangheng Du, Jiabao Zhao, Jinxin Shi, Zhentao Xie, Xin Jiang, Yanhong Bai, and Liang He. A survey on the optimization of large language model-based agents.ACM Computing Surveys, 58(9):1–37, 2026

    work page 2026

  7. [7]

    Webevolver: Enhancing web agent self-improvement with coevolving world model, 2025

    Tianqing Fang, Hongming Zhang, Zhisong Zhang, Kaixin Ma, Wenhao Yu, Haitao Mi, and Dong Yu. Webevolver: Enhancing web agent self-improvement with coevolving world model, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2504. 21024

    2025

  8. [8]

    Self-Verification Provably Prevents Model Collapse in Recursive Synthetic Training

    Shi Fu, Yingjie Wang, Yuzhu Chen, Li Shen, and Dacheng Tao. Self-Verification Provably Prevents Model Collapse in Recursive Synthetic Training. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025. URL https://mlanthology.org/neurips/2025/fu2025neurips-selfverification/

    work page 2025

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Goodman, and Dimitris Papailiopoulos

    Kanishk Gandhi, Shivam Garg, Noah D. Goodman, and Dimitris Papailiopoulos. Endless terminals: Scaling rl environments for terminal agents, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2601.16443. 15

    2026

  2. [10]

    Fung, Kun Wang, Linfeng Zhang, and Jing Shao

    Dadi Guo, Tianyi Zhou, Dongrui Liu, Chen Qian, Qihan Ren, Shuai Shao, Zhiyuan Fan, Yi R. Fung, Kun Wang, Linfeng Zhang, and Jing Shao. Towards self-evolving benchmarks: Synthesizing agent trajectories via test-time exploration under validate-by-reproduce paradigm, 2026. URLhtt...

    2026

  3. [11]

    Harbor: A framework for evaluating and optimizing agents and models in container environments, 2026

    Harbor Framework Team. Harbor: A framework for evaluating and optimizing agents and models in container environments, 2026. URLhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20953922

    2026 doi

  4. [12]

    Visplay: Self-evolving vision- language models from images.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.15661, 2025

    Yicheng He, Chengsong Huang, Zongxia Li, Jiaxin Huang, and Yonghui Yang. Visplay: Self-evolving vision- language models from images.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.15661, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    V-star: Training verifiers for self-taught reasoners.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06457, 2024

    Arian Hosseini, Xingdi Yuan, Nikolay Malkin, Aaron Courville, Alessandro Sordoni, and Rishabh Agarwal. V-star: Training verifiers for self-taught reasoners.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06457, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Cli-universe: Towards verifiable task synthesis engine for terminal agents, 2026

    Zhanbo Hua, Yifan Yao, Weihao Xie, Yongchi Zhao, Minghao Liu, Ruizhi Qiu, Zhewei Huang, Zun Wang, Yiyan Ji, Yunhai Ye, Letian Zhu, Xinping Lei, Han Li, Zhiyuan Ma, Zili Wang, Zhaoxiang Zhang, and Jiaheng Liu. Cli-universe: Towards verifiable task synthesis engine for terminal ...

    2026 arXiv

  7. [15]

    R-zero: Self-evolving reasoning llm from zero data, 2026

    Chengsong Huang, Wenhao Yu, Xiaoyang Wang, Hongming Zhang, Zongxia Li, Ruosen Li, Jiaxin Huang, Haitao Mi, and Dong Yu. R-zero: Self-evolving reasoning llm from zero data, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2508.05004

    2026 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Tmax: A simple recipe for terminal agents, 2026

    Hamish Ivison, Junjie Oscar Yin, Rulin Shao, Teng Xiao, Nathan Lambert, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Tmax: A simple recipe for terminal agents, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2606.23321

    2026 arXiv

  9. [17]

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

    Carlos E Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik Narasimhan. Swe-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues? In B. Kim, Y. Yue, S. Chaudhuri, K. Fragkiadaki, M. Khan, and Y. Sun, editors,International Conference on ...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Ziegler, Elizabeth Barnes, and Lawrence Chan

    Thomas Kwa, Ben West, Joel Becker, Amy Deng, Katharyn Garcia, Max Hasin, Sami Jawhar, Megan Kinniment, Nate Rush, Sydney Von Arx, Ryan Bloom, Thomas Broadley, Haoxing Du, Brian Goodrich, Nikola Jurkovic, Luke Harold Miles, Seraphina Nix, Tao Lin, Chris Painter, Neev Parikh, Da...

    2026 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Self-rewarding vision-language model via reasoning decomposition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.19652, 2025

    Zongxia Li, Wenhao Yu, Chengsong Huang, Zhenwen Liang, Rui Liu, Fuxiao Liu, Jingxi Che, Dian Yu, Jordan Boyd-Graber, Haitao Mi, et al. Self-rewarding vision-language model via reasoning decomposition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.19652, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Mm-zero: Self-evolving multi-model vision language models from zero data

    Zongxia Li, Hongyang Du, Chengsong Huang, Xiyang Wu, Lantao Yu, Yicheng He, Jing Xie, Xiaomin Wu, Zhichao Liu, Jiarui Zhang, et al. Mm-zero: Self-evolving multi-model vision language models from zero data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.09206, 2026

    2026

  13. [21]

    Long-horizon-terminal-bench: Testing the limits of agents on long-horizon terminal tasks with dense reward-based grading, 2026

    Zongxia Li, Zhongzhi Li, Yucheng Shi, Ruhan Wang, Junyao Yang, Zhichao Liu, Xiyang Wu, Anhao Li, Yue Yu, Ninghao Liu, Lichao Sun, Haotao Mi, and Leowei Liang. Long-horizon-terminal-bench: Testing the limits of agents on long-horizon terminal tasks with dense reward-based gradi...

    2026 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Agentbench: Evaluating llms as agents,

    Xiao Liu, Hao Yu, Hanchen Zhang, Yifan Xu, Xuanyu Lei, Hanyu Lai, Yu Gu, Hangliang Ding, Kaiwen Men, Kejuan Yang, Shudan Zhang, Xiang Deng, Aohan Zeng, Zhengxiao Du, Chenhui Zhang, Sheng Shen, Tianjun Zhang, Yu Su, Huan Sun, Minlie Huang, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. Agentbench:...

  15. [23]

    Merrill, Alexander G

    Mike A. Merrill, Alexander G. Shaw, Nicholas Carlini, Boxuan Li, Harsh Raj, Ivan Bercovich, Lin Shi, Jeong Yeon Shin, Thomas Walshe, E. Kelly Buchanan, Junhong Shen, Guanghao Ye, Haowei Lin, Jason Poulos, Maoyu Wang, Marianna Nezhurina, Jenia Jitsev, Di Lu, Orfeas Menis Mastro...

    2026 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Gaia: a benchmark for general ai assistants, 2023

    Grégoire Mialon, Clémentine Fourrier, Craig Swift, Thomas Wolf, Yann LeCun, and Thomas Scialom. Gaia: a benchmark for general ai assistants, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2311.12983

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Training software engineering agents and verifiers with swe-gym, 2025

    Jiayi Pan, Xingyao Wang, Graham Neubig, Navdeep Jaitly, Heng Ji, Alane Suhr, and Yizhe Zhang. Training software engineering agents and verifiers with swe-gym, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2412.21139

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Litecoder- terminal: Scaling long-horizon terminal environments for learning language agents, 2026

    Xiaoxuan Peng, Kaiqi Zhang, Xinyu Lu, Boxi Cao, Yaojie Lu, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, and Le Sun. Litecoder- terminal: Scaling long-horizon terminal environments for learning language agents, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/2605.29559

    2026 arXiv

  19. [27]

    On data engineering for scaling llm terminal capabilities, 2026

    Renjie Pi, Grace Lam, Mohammad Shoeybi, Pooya Jannaty, Bryan Catanzaro, and Wei Ping. On data engineering for scaling llm terminal capabilities, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2602.21193

    2026

  20. [28]

    Self-consistency preference optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04109, 2024

    Archiki Prasad, Weizhe Yuan, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Jing Xu, Maryam Fazel-Zarandi, Mohit Bansal, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Jason Weston, and Jane Yu. Self-consistency preference optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04109, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Ruan, Tyler Griggs, Alexander Glenn Shaw, Hritik Bansal, E

    Negin Raoof, Richard Zhuang, Marianna Nezhurina, Etash Guha, Atula Tejaswi, Ryan Marten, Charlie F. Ruan, Tyler Griggs, Alexander Glenn Shaw, Hritik Bansal, E. Kelly Buchanan, Artem Gazizov, Reinhard Heckel, Chinmay Hegde, Sankalp Jajee, Daanish Khazi, Emmanouil Koukoumidis, X...

    2026 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Seta: Scaling environments for terminal agents, 2026

    Qijia Shen, Zhiqi Huang, Vamsidhar Kamanuru, Aznaur Aliev, Jay Rainton, Ahmed Awelkair, Zhichen Zeng, Jiajun Li, Shi Dong, Yueming Yuan, Boyuan Ma, Qizheng Zhang, Jiwei Fu, Yuzhen Mao, Wendong Fan, Ping Nie, Philip Torr, Bernard Ghanem, Changran Hu, Jonathan Lingjie Li, Urmish...

    2026 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Co-Reyes, Rishabh Agarwal, Ankesh Anand, Piyush Patil, Xavier Garcia, Peter J

    Avi Singh, John D. Co-Reyes, Rishabh Agarwal, Ankesh Anand, Piyush Patil, Xavier Garcia, Peter J. Liu, James Harrison, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, Aaron Parisi, Abhishek Kumar, Alex Alemi, Alex Rizkowsky, Azade Nova, Ben Adlam, Bernd Bohnet, Gamaleldin Elsayed, Hanie Sedghi, Igor ...

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Envscaler: Scaling tool-interactive environments for llm agent via programmatic synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.05808, 2026

    Xiaoshuai Song, Haofei Chang, Guanting Dong, Yutao Zhu, Zhicheng Dou, and Ji-Rong Wen. Envscaler: Scaling tool-interactive environments for llm agent via programmatic synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.05808, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Scaleenv: Scaling environment synthesis from scratch for generalist interactive tool-use agent training, 2026

    Dunwei Tu, Hongyan Hao, Hansi Yang, Yihao Chen, Yi-Kai Zhang, Zhikang Xia, Yu Yang, Yueqing Sun, Xingchen Liu, Furao Shen, Qi Gu, Hui Su, and Xunliang Cai. Scaleenv: Scaling environment synthesis from scratch for generalist interactive tool-use agent training, 2026. URLhttps:/...

    2026

  26. [34]

    Apex-agents, 2026

    Bertie Vidgen, Austin Mann, Abby Fennelly, John Wright Stanly, Lucas Rothman, Marco Burstein, Julien Benchek, David Ostrofsky, Anirudh Ravichandran, Debnil Sur, Neel Venugopal, Alannah Hsia, Isaac Robinson, Calix Huang, Olivia Varones, Daniyal Khan, Michael Haines, Austin Brid...

    2026

  27. [35]

    Swe-bench++: A framework for the scalable generation of software engineering benchmarks from open-source repositories, 2025

    Lilin Wang, Lucas Ramalho, Alan Celestino, Phuc Anthony Pham, Yu Liu, Umang Kumar Sinha, Andres Portillo, Onassis Osunwa, and Gabriel Maduekwe. Swe-bench++: A framework for the scalable generation of software engineering benchmarks from open-source repositories, 2025. URLhttps...

    2025

  28. [36]

    Xu, Xiangru Tang, Mingchen Zhuge, Jiayi Pan, Yueqi Song, Bowen Li, Jaskirat Singh, Hoang H

    Xingyao Wang, Boxuan Li, Yufan Song, Frank F. Xu, Xiangru Tang, Mingchen Zhuge, Jiayi Pan, Yueqi Song, Bowen Li, Jaskirat Singh, Hoang H. Tran, Fuqiang Li, Ren Ma, Mingzhang Zheng, Bill Qian, Yanjun Shao, Niklas Muennighoff, Yizhe Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Junyang Lin, Robert Brenna...

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Llms as scalable, general-purpose simulators for evolving digital agent training,

    Yiming Wang, Da Yin, Yuedong Cui, Ruichen Zheng, Zhiqian Li, Zongyu Lin, Di Wu, Xueqing Wu, Chenchen Ye, Yu Zhou, and Kai-Wei Chang. Llms as scalable, general-purpose simulators for evolving digital agent training,

  30. [38]

    Li, Wenjie Ma, Li Cao, Ziheng Zhou, Mert Cemri, Shu Liu, Yuran Xiu, Chenxiao Yan, Haikun Zhao, Bin Yu, Ion Stoica, and Dawn Song

    Yangzhen Wu, Aaron J. Li, Wenjie Ma, Li Cao, Ziheng Zhou, Mert Cemri, Shu Liu, Yuran Xiu, Chenxiao Yan, Haikun Zhao, Bin Yu, Ion Stoica, and Dawn Song. Benchevolver: Frontier task synthesis via solution-centric evolution, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2606.01286

    2026 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Autowebworld: Synthesizing infinite verifiable web environments via finite state machines, 2026

    Yifan Wu, Yiran Peng, Yiyu Chen, Jianhao Ruan, Zijie Zhuang, Cheng Yang, Jiayi Zhang, Man Chen, Yenchi Tseng, Zhaoyang Yu, Liang Chen, Yuyao Zhai, Bang Liu, Chenglin Wu, and Yuyu Luo. Autowebworld: Synthesizing infinite verifiable web environments via finite state machines, 20...

    2026

  32. [40]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2510.14969

  33. [41]

    Osworld: Benchmarking multimodal agents for open-ended tasks in real computer environments, 2024

    Tianbao Xie, Danyang Zhang, Jixuan Chen, Xiaochuan Li, Siheng Zhao, Ruisheng Cao, Toh Jing Hua, Zhoujun Cheng, Dongchan Shin, Fangyu Lei, Yitao Liu, Yiheng Xu, Shuyan Zhou, Silvio Savarese, Caiming Xiong, Victor Zhong, and Tao Yu. Osworld: Benchmarking multimodal agents for op...

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Wizardlm: Empowering large pre-trained language models to follow complex instructions

    Can Xu, Qingfeng Sun, Kai Zheng, Xiubo Geng, Pu Zhao, Jiazhan Feng, Chongyang Tao, Qingwei Lin, and Daxin Jiang. Wizardlm: Empowering large pre-trained language models to follow complex instructions. In B. Kim, Y. Yue, S. Chaudhuri, K. Fragkiadaki, M. Khan, and Y. Sun, editors...

    2024

  35. [43]

    Agent0: Unleashing self-evolving agents from zero data via tool-integrated reasoning, 2025

    Peng Xia, Kaide Zeng, Jiaqi Liu, Can Qin, Fang Wu, Yiyang Zhou, Caiming Xiong, and Huaxiu Yao. Agent0: Unleashing self-evolving agents from zero data via tool-integrated reasoning, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2511.16043

    2025

  36. [44]

    Self-rewarding language models, 2025

    Weizhe Yuan, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Kyunghyun Cho, Xian Li, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Jing Xu, and Jason Weston. Self-rewarding language models, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2401.10020

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Multi-swe-bench: A multilingual benchmark for issue resolving, 2025

    Daoguang Zan, Zhirong Huang, Wei Liu, Hanwu Chen, Linhao Zhang, Shulin Xin, Lu Chen, Qi Liu, Xiaojian Zhong, Aoyan Li, Siyao Liu, Yongsheng Xiao, Liangqiang Chen, Yuyu Zhang, Jing Su, Tianyu Liu, Rui Long, Kai Shen, and Liang Xiang. Multi-swe-bench: A multilingual benchmark fo...

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Jimenez, Alexander Wettig, Kilian Lieret, Shunyu Yao, Karthik Narasimhan, and Ofir Press

    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, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2405.15793

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Rlve: Scaling up reinforcement learning for language models with adaptive verifiable environments, 2025

    Zhiyuan Zeng, Hamish Ivison, Yiping Wang, Lifan Yuan, Shuyue Stella Li, Zhuorui Ye, Siting Li, Jacqueline He, Runlong Zhou, Tong Chen, Chenyang Zhao, Yulia Tsvetkov, Simon Shaolei Du, Natasha Jaques, Hao Peng, Pang Wei Koh, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Rlve: Scaling up reinforceme...

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Infiniteweb: Scalable web environment synthesis for gui agent training, 2026

    Ziyun Zhang, Zezhou Wang, Xiaoyi Zhang, Zongyu Guo, Jiahao Li, Bin Li, and Yan Lu. Infiniteweb: Scalable web environment synthesis for gui agent training, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2601.04126

    2026 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning

    Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah Goodman. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:15476–15488, 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

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

    Shuyan Zhou, Frank F. Xu, Hao Zhu, Xuhui Zhou, Robert Lo, Abishek Sridhar, Xianyi Cheng, Tianyue Ou, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, Uri Alon, and Graham Neubig. Webarena: A realistic web environment for building autonomous agents, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2307.13854

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Self-challenging lan- guage model agents

    Yifei Zhou, Sergey Levine, Jason Weston, Xian Li, and Sainbayar Sukhbaatar. Self-challenging lan- guage model agents. In D. Belgrave, C. Zhang, H. Lin, R. Pascanu, P. Koniusz, M. Ghassemi, and N. Chen, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 38, pages...

    2025

  44. [52]

    Absolute zero: Reinforced self-play reasoning with zero data, 2025

    Andrew Zhao, Yiran Wu, Yang Yue, Tong Wu, Quentin Xu, Yang Yue, Matthieu Lin, Shenzhi Wang, Qingyun Wu, Zilong Zheng, and Gao Huang. Absolute zero: Reinforced self-play reasoning with zero data, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.03335

    2025 arXiv

  45. [53]

    fix this bug

    Yiqi Zhu, Apurva Gandhi, and Graham Neubig. Training versatile coding agents in synthetic environments, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2512.12216. 19 A Bootstrap Seed Pool Diversity Section 4.1 describes the 639 oracle-valid bootstrap tasks, whose high-level domain distributio...

    2025

  46. [55]

    Termigen: High-fidelity environment and robust trajectory synthesis for terminal agents, 2026

    Kaijie Zhu, Yuzhou Nie, Yijiang Li, Yiming Huang, Jialian Wu, Jiang Liu, Ximeng Sun, Zhenfei Yin, Lun Wang, Zicheng Liu, Emad Barsoum, William Yang Wang, and Wenbo Guo. Termigen: High-fidelity environment and robust trajectory synthesis for terminal agents, 2026. URLhttps://ar...

    2026

  47. [57]

    List every file/path the verifier tests require to exist or contain specific content

  48. [58]

    List every file/path solution/solve.sh creates or updates

  49. [59]

    List every file/path promised in contract.expected_artifacts and every artifact/state implied by contract.task_chain

  50. [60]

    List every dense reward check in contract.reward_checks and identify which verifier subcheck enforces it

  51. [61]

    Compare these lists; any verifier-required path or reward-check artifact missing from the solution plan is a bug

  52. [62]

    Mentally execute solution/solve.sh in order; if a step would fail or skip an artifact, fix the solution

  53. [63]

    If environment/Dockerfile is supposed to provide config/scripts/fixtures, confirm they are actually created in the Dockerfile

  54. [64]

    If instruction points to a path, config, validation script, README, fixture, or log, confirm that evidence exists or is created by the environment

  55. [65]

    until tests pass

    Instruction fairness audit: - If instruction mentions /tests, tests/test.sh, pytest acceptance loops, or "until tests pass", remove those leaks. - Prefer fixing unfair gaps by adding/repairing workspace evidence (README/spec/config) that instruction already points to - not by ...

  56. [2025]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03688

    arXiv

  57. [2026]

    Benchmark and evaluation code available athttps://github.com/abundant-ai/swe-marathon

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.