Synapse: Trajectory-as-Exemplar Prompting with Memory for Computer Control
Open accessAbstract
Building agents with large language models (LLMs) for computer control is a burgeoning research area, where the agent receives computer states and performs actions to complete complex tasks. Previous computer agents have demonstrated the benefits of in-context learning (ICL); however, their performance is hindered by several issues. First, the limited context length of LLMs and complex computer states restrict the number of exemplars, as a single webpage can consume the entire context. Second, the exemplars in current methods, such as high-level plans and multi-choice questions, cannot represent complete trajectories, leading to suboptimal performance in long-horizon tasks. Third, existing computer agents rely on task-specific exemplars and overlook the similarity among tasks, resulting in poor generalization to novel tasks. To address these challenges, we introduce Synapse, a computer agent featuring three key components: i) state abstraction, which filters out task-irrelevant information from raw states, allowing more exemplars within the limited context, ii) trajectory-as-exemplar prompting, which prompts the LLM with complete trajectories of the abstracted states and actions to improve multi-step decision-making, and iii) exemplar memory, which stores the embeddings of exemplars and retrieves them via similarity search for generalization to novel tasks. We evaluate Synapse on MiniWoB++, a standard task suite, and Mind2Web, a real-world website benchmark. In MiniWoB++, Synapse achieves a 99.2% average success rate (a 10% relative improvement) across 64 tasks using demonstrations from only 48 tasks. Notably, Synapse is the first ICL method to solve the book-flight task in MiniWoB++. Synapse also exhibits a 56% relative improvement in average step success rate over the previous state-of-the-art prompting scheme in Mind2Web.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
GraphRAG, ENGRAM, and SYNAPSE share the goal of replacing flat similarity search with a representation better matched to long-horizon reasoning.
“These approaches differ in mechanism, but they share the same goal: replacing flat similarity search with a representation better matched to long-horizon reasoning.”
From Externalization in LLM Agents: A Unified Review of Memory, Skills, Protocols and Harness Engineering (2026) · cites this paper as Zheng et al., 2023
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 7
- Authors
- Zheng, L., Wang, R., Wang, X., & An, B.
- Affiliations
- Nanyang Technological University (SG)
- ORCID
- Zheng, Longtao
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2306.07863
- OpenAlex
- W4380715434
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web Data Mining and Analysis
- Keywords
- computational agents, large language models, in-context learning, exemplar memory, state abstraction, similarity search, web browsing, task similarity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review