PreprintCited by 14Topic ModelingDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningAI-based Problem Solving and Planning

Dynamic Cheatsheet: Test-Time Learning with Adaptive Memory

Open access
Suzgun, Mirac, Yuksekgonul, Mert, Bianchi, Federico, Jurafsky, Dan, Zou, James·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Despite their impressive performance on complex tasks, current language models (LMs) typically operate in a vacuum: Each input query is processed separately, without retaining insights from previous attempts. Here, we present Dynamic Cheatsheet (DC), a lightweight framework that endows a black-box LM with a persistent, evolving memory. Rather than repeatedly re-discovering or re-committing the same solutions and mistakes, DC enables models to store and reuse accumulated strategies, code snippets, and general problem-solving insights at inference time. This test-time learning enhances performance substantially across a range of tasks without needing explicit ground-truth labels or human feedback. Leveraging DC, Claude 3.5 Sonnet's accuracy more than doubled on AIME math exams once it began retaining algebraic insights across questions. Similarly, GPT-4o's success rate on Game of 24 increased from 10% to 99% after the model discovered and reused a Python-based solution. In tasks prone to arithmetic mistakes, such as balancing equations, DC enabled GPT-4o and Claude to reach near-perfect accuracy by recalling previously validated code, whereas their baselines stagnated around 50%. Beyond arithmetic challenges, DC yields notable accuracy gains on knowledge-demanding tasks. Claude achieved a 9% improvement in GPQA-Diamond and an 8% boost on MMLU-Pro problems. Crucially, DC's memory is self-curated, focusing on concise, transferable snippets rather than entire transcript. Unlike fi…

Verified 2026-10-24 · 1 reference not checked yet

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Dynamic Cheatsheet (DC) is a lightweight, non-parametric memory framework that lets black-box language models store, curate, and reuse strategies, code snippets, and problem-solving insights at inference time without weight updates or ground-truth labels. Across challenging reasoning benchmarks, DC substantially improves larger models such as Claude 3.5 Sonnet and GPT-4o, but gains are limited for smaller or less capable models.

Key findings

  • On AIME, Claude 3.5 Sonnet improved from 23.3% to 50.0% on AIME 2024 under DC-Cu, from 6.7% to 36.7% on AIME 2025 under DC-Cu, and from 6.7% to 40.6% on AIME 2020–24 under DC-RS.
  • On Game of 24, GPT-4o rose from 10.0% baseline to 99.0% under DC-RS, while DC-∅ reached 19.0%; Claude 3.5 Sonnet moved only from 12.0% to 14.0%.
  • On Math Equation Balancer, Claude 3.5 Sonnet improved from 44.8% to 100% under DC-Cu and 97.8% under DC-RS; GPT-4o improved from 50.0% to 100% under DC-Cu and 99.2% under DC-RS.
  • On GPQA-Diamond, Claude 3.5 Sonnet improved from 59.6% to 68.7% under DC-RS, while GPT-4o changed only from 57.1% to 58.1%; on MMLU-Pro Physics, Claude rose from 74.0% to 82.0% under DC-RS.

Methods

  • DC uses two modules: a solution generator conditioned on the current query and memory, and a memory curator that updates, refines, or prunes stored strategies without gradient updates. DC-Cu cumulatively updates memory without retrieval; DC-RS retrieves top-k=3 similar past input-output pairs using OpenAI text-embedding-3-small, curates memory before generation, and then generates an answer.
  • Baselines include plain prompting (BL), empty-memory DC-∅, full-history appending (FH), and dynamic retrieval without curation (DR). Tasks include AIME 2024/2025/2020–24, GPQA-Diamond (198 questions), Game of 24 (100 examples), Math Equation Balancer (250 expressions), and MMLU-Pro Engineering and Physics (250 sampled questions each).
  • Models evaluated include GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4o-mini, Claude 3.5 Haiku, and reasoning models such as DeepSeek R1; answers were parsed from XML-style tags and scored with task-specific soft-match or functionally-correct metrics.

Limitations

  • The paper states DC is not a panacea: smaller models such as GPT-4o-mini and Claude 3.5 Haiku benefit limitedly or inconsistently because they generate too few correct solutions to populate memory with high-quality strategies and struggle to refine stored content.
  • The paper reports that retrieval can introduce confusion when suboptimal examples are recalled, as with GPT-4o on GPQA-Diamond; it also notes that memory curation lacks ground-truth labels, so faulty heuristics can be amplified, and that long-context generation limits can cause truncated memory updates.
  • The paper states DC’s sequential structure poses challenges for large-scale parallel or batch tasks, and that additional experiments with DeepSeek R1 and o1 showed minimal or inconsistent improvements because their solutions were too verbose and long.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2504.07952

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

4 of 15 cited sources checked · 3 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingown data
    § 2.3. Baselines · p. 4

    Zero-shot chain-of-thought prompting did not yield any gains in the paper's preliminary experiments.

    “We experimented with the zero-shot CoT approach (Kojima et al., 2022) in our preliminary experiments, but it did not yield any gains (Arcuschin et al., 2025).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Kojima et al., 2022 source
    • cites Arcuschin et al., 2025 source

      Section 2.1 describes asking models to reason step by step, and Appendix B describes a few-shot prompt for one baseline model. Neither reports preliminary zero-shot CoT experiments or whether they yielded gains. Searches for “zero-shot,” “preliminary experiments,” and “gains” found no passage establishing the attributed result. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation
    § A.2. Test-time compute and reasoning · p. 14

    Inference-time expansions come at the cost of increased computational overhead per test instance.

    “However, these expansions come at the cost of increased computational overhead per test instance (Yao et al., 2023).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Yao et al., 2023 source
  • Findingown data
    § 1. Introduction · p. 2

    Claude 3.5 Sonnet's accuracy on AIME 2024 increased from 23.3% under baseline prompting to 50.0% under DC-Cu.

    “On AIME 2024, Claude 3.5 Sonnet jumped from 23% to 50% accuracy, more than doubling its baseline score, by retaining algebraic and combinatorial insights.”
    • Also stated in: § 4.1. DC enables test-time learning and reduces repetitive errors · p. 6 · plain
      “Claude 3.5 Sonnet's AIME 2024 accuracy jumps by 27% under DC-Cu”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Abstract · p. 1

    Claude achieved an 8% boost on MMLU-Pro Engineering and Physics problems under DC.

    “Claude achieved a 9% improvement in GPQA-Diamond and an 8% boost on MMLU-Pro Engineering and Physics problems.”
    • Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 2 · hedged
      “In MMLU-Pro Engineering and Physics, it provided up to an 8% boost in performance by allowing the model to maintain a 'toolkit' of formulas and general problem-solving patterns.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § 4.1. DC enables test-time learning and reduces repetitive errors · p. 5

    GPT-4o's performance on Game of 24 under DC-∅ was 19%.

    “The performance under DC-∅ (19%) further highlights the positive impact of memory curation and retrieval.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 25
  • May combine two claims. 41
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § A.2. Test-time compute and reasoning · p. 14

    Contemporary LLMs such as GPT-4 can exhibit substantial improvements in reasoning and generation capability when additional compute is devoted to inference-time strategies.

    “It is now widely known and accepted that contemporary LLMs such as GPT-4 can exhibit substantial improvements in reasoning and generation capability when additional compute is devoted to inference-time strategies (e.g., chain-ofthought prompting (Wei et al., 2022; Kojima et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022), tree-of-thought expansions (Yao et al., 2023; Long, 2023), minimum Bayes risk decoding (Suzgun”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Wei et al., 2022 source
    • cites Yao et al., 2023 source
    • cites Wang et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Abstract · p. 1

    In Math Equation Balancer, GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet reached near-perfect accuracy of 98-100% under DC, whereas their baselines stagnated around 45-50%.

    “In tasks prone to arithmetic mistakes, such as balancing equations, DC enabled GPT-4o and Claude to reach near-perfect accuracy by recalling previously validated code, whereas their baselines stagnated around 50%.”
    • Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 2 · plain
      “We saw a similar pattern in Math Equation Balancer, where GPT-4o and Claude soared from 45-50% to 98-100% by 'recalling' a straightforward code-based approach instead of manually fumbling with numeric manipulations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § 1. Introduction · p. 2

    Claude 3.5 Sonnet's accuracy on AIME 2025 increased by 30 percentage points under DC-Cu, from 6.7% to 36.7%.

    “Likewise, it gained 30% accuracy on AIME 2025.”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · p. 1 · plain
      “Claude 3.5 Sonnet gaining 27% on AIME 2024 and 30% on AIME 2025 under DC-Cu.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 1. Introduction · p. 2

    DC increases performance and reduces repetitive mistakes across multiple challenging benchmarks.

    “We tested DC across multiple challenging benchmarks and observed that it increases performance and reduces repetitive mistakes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § 1. Introduction · p. 2

    Smaller models such as GPT-4o-mini benefit from DC in limited amounts because they generate too few correct solutions, leaving the memory populated with flawed or incomplete strategies, and they struggle to refine stored content.

    “We found that smaller models, such as GPT-4o-mini, benefit from DC in limited amounts. These models generate too few correct solutions in these challenging tasks in the first place, leaving the memory populated with flawed or incomplete strategies. Worse, they struggle to refine stored content.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9

    DC-Cu outperformed MV, reaching 50.0% on AIME 2024 and 36.7% on AIME 2025.

    “In contrast, DC-Cu outperformed MV, reaching 50.0% on AIME 2024 and 36.7% on AIME 2025.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § 4.5. Model scale and capacity impact DC effectiveness · p. 8

    On AIME 2025, GPT-4o-mini showed a minor improvement, peaking at 16.7% under DC-RS.

    “AIME 2025 showed a minor improvement, peaking at 16.7% under DC-RS.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.3. Memory curation (DC) fosters generalization and provides gains over full-history-appending (FH) · p. 6

    GPT-4o managed a baseline of 20.0% but fell to 6.7% using FH, in contrast to 40.0% with DC-RS.

    “Similarly, GPT-4o managed a baseline of 20.0% but fell to 6.7% using FH, in direct contrast to 40.0% with DC-RS.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.3. Memory curation (DC) fosters generalization and provides gains over full-history-appending (FH) · p. 7

    GPT-4o discovered a Python-based brute-force solution, stored it, and subsequently retrieved it for subsequent puzzles.

    “Early in the test sequence, the model discovered a Python-based brute-force solution, stored it, and subsequently retrieved it for subsequent puzzles.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.3. Memory curation (DC) fosters generalization and provides gains over full-history-appending (FH) · p. 6

    Sonnet under FH reached 26.7% accuracy in 2024 questions, while DC-based methods hit 50.0%.

    “As shown in Table 2, Sonnet under FH reached 26.7% accuracy in 2024 questions, while DC-based methods hit 50.0%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.5. Model scale and capacity impact DC effectiveness · p. 8

    GPT-4o-mini showed even smaller gains, with some variants leading to slight declines in performance.

    “That said, GPT-4o-mini (Table 3) showed even smaller gains, with some variants leading to slight declines in performance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § 4.4. DC fosters efficient tool usage / code generation · p. 7

    GPT-4o's near-complete reliance on Python scripts for Game of 24 exemplifies a shift toward code generation.

    “GPT-4o's near-complete reliance on Python scripts for Game of 24 exemplifies this shift.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.5. Model scale and capacity impact DC effectiveness · p. 8

    On AIME 2024, DC-∅ provided a 20.0% boost for GPT-4o-mini, but both DC-Cu and DC-RS performed worse than baseline.

    “On AIME 2024, DC-∅ provided a 20.0% boost, but both DC-Cu and DC-RS performed worse than baseline.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.5. Model scale and capacity impact DC effectiveness · p. 7

    Claude 3.5 Sonnet and GPT-4o showed notable gains across multiple tasks under DC, while Claude 3.5 Haiku and GPT-4o-mini showed more limited and inconsistent gains.

    “While Claude 3.5 Sonnet and GPT-4o showed notable gains across multiple tasks under DC, their smaller counterparts, Claude 3.5 Haiku and GPT-4o-mini, showed more limited and inconsistent gains.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9

    On AIME 2024, Claude Sonnet averaged 370 tokens under BL, 494 under DC-∅, 1035 under DC-RS, and 1831 under DC-Cu.

    “On AIME 2024, Claude Sonnet averaged 370 tokens under BL, 494 under DC-∅ , 1035 under DC-RS, and 1831 under DC-Cu.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks · p. 6

    Models quickly learned an algorithmic or Python-based balancing routine, stored it in external memory, and repeatedly retrieved it, achieving exceptional consistency once the core method was established.

    “As observed in Game of 24, the models quickly learned an algorithmic or Python-based balancing routine, stored it in external memory, and repeatedly retrieved it, achieving exceptional consistency once the core method was established.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given
    § 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9

    The solutions were far too verbose and long.

    “The solutions were far too verbose and long.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks · p. 6

    DC-Cu achieved the highest accuracy scores on AIME 2024 and AIME 2025.

    “DC-Cu, where the model curates memory after processing the input and does not involve a retrieval stage, also proved potent in recent exam sets, achieving highest accuracy scores in AIME 2024 and 2025.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § 4.4. DC fosters efficient tool usage / code generation · p. 7

    GPT-4o generated, stored, and iteratively refined a Python function that tested permutations of numbers and operations, allowing it to solve each instance of Game of 24 with high accuracy.

    “It generated, stored, and iteratively refined a Python function that tested permutations of numbers and operations, allowing it to solve each instance of Game of 24 with high accuracy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.3. Memory curation (DC) fosters generalization and provides gains over full-history-appending (FH) · p. 7

    This shift to structured code reuse resulted in a dramatic performance increase from 10% to 99% accuracy, eliminating arithmetic errors and redundant problem-solving efforts.

    “This shift to structured code reuse resulted in a dramatic performance increase from 10% to 99% accuracy, eliminating arithmetic errors and redundant problem-solving efforts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9

    In ablation experiments, we observed mixed results.

    “In our ablation experiments, we observed mixed results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § B.3. Evolution of Memory Content under Dynamic Cheatsheet · p. 18

    Both DC-Cu and DC-RS show high stability in memory content after the first few iterations in Game of 24.

    “While both DC-Cu and DC-RS show high stability after the first few iterations”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 2.2. DC with Retrieval & Synthesis (DC-RS) · p. 3

    DC-Cu updates the memory after processing an input query rather than refining it before generating a response, so the model lacks the opportunity to incorporate new insights from the current query while reasoning through its solution.

    “First , it updates the memory after processing an input query, rather than refining it before generating a response. This means the model lacks the opportunity to incorporate new insights from the current query while reasoning through its solution.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 2.2. DC with Retrieval & Synthesis (DC-RS) · p. 3

    DC-Cu does not store or revisit past input-output pairs unless explicitly retained in memory, preventing the model from directly retrieving and leveraging historical responses.

    “Second , DCCu does not store or revisit past input-output pairs unless explicitly retained in memory. This omission prevents the model from directly retrieving and leveraging historical responses, which can be particularly valuable in benchmarks covering diverse topics or domains (e.g., GPQA-Diamond).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 2.2. DC with Retrieval & Synthesis (DC-RS) · p. 4

    DC-RS enhances the model's adaptability and reasoning efficiency by refining the memory before responding and retrieving prior cases when needed.

    “By refining the memory before responding and retrieving prior cases when needed, DC-RS enhances the model's adaptability and reasoning efficiency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 3.1. Tasks and Datasets · p. 4

    The selected datasets include algorithmic, logical, and domain-specific reasoning tasks, each chosen to stress-test the model's ability to refine its reasoning over time.

    “Overall, the selected datasets include algorithmic, logical, and domain-specific reasoning tasks, each chosen to stresstest the model's ability to refine its reasoning over time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The selected benchmarks are challenging tasks where contemporary state-of-the-art LLMs still face limitations and are not near saturation.
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 1. Introduction · p. 2

    GPT-4o discovered a Python brute-force solver for Game of 24 early in the test sequence, stored it, and then retrieved it for subsequent queries, avoiding manual arithmetic.

    “Early in the test sequence, the model discovered that an efficient Python brute-force solver eliminated all manual guesswork. Once this snippet was stored, GPT-4o simply retrieved it for subsequent queries, avoiding manual arithmetic entirely.”
    • Also stated in: § 4.1. DC enables test-time learning and reduces repetitive errors · p. 5 · plain
      “Early in the task sequence, GPT-4o discovered a reliable, Python-based brute-force method to solve Game of 24 and later on recognized the repetitive structure of the problem. The model then encoded this approach into its memory. Once established, GPT-4o consistently retrieved and applied the more or less same Python solution for subsequent examples, leading to rapid and accurate results.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § Abstract · p. 1

    DC's memory is self-curated, focusing on concise, transferable snippets rather than entire transcripts, thereby facilitating meta-learning and avoiding context ballooning.

    “Crucially, DC's memory is self-curated, focusing on concise, transferable snippets rather than entire transcripts, thereby facilitating meta-learning and avoiding context ballooning.”
    • Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 2 · plain
      “Under DC, memory is carefully curated, focusing on succinct, useful, and transferable knowledge over raw transcripts. This prevents ballooning context lengths (Liu et al., 2024a) and helps ensure that repeated retrieval remains tractable.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Liu et al., 2024a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 1. Introduction · p. 2

    DC can amplify the strengths of models that can already produce high-quality outputs, but cannot fix foundational gaps in reasoning.

    “DC can amplify the strengths of models that can already produce high-quality outputs, but not fix foundational gaps in reasoning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1. Tasks and Datasets · p. 5

    GPQA-Diamond contains 198 expert-validated questions across natural sciences, including biology, chemistry, and physics.

    “GPQA-Diamond contains 198 expertvalidated questions across natural sciences, including biology, chemistry, and physics.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rein et al., 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 2.3. Baselines · p. 4

    Full-History Appending can exceed context-window limits and include redundant or low-value information.

    “FH can exceed context-window limits and include redundant or low-value information, but nonetheless, it provides a useful comparison for methods that actively curate content.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 2.3. Baselines · p. 4

    Dynamic Retrieval can help the model see relevant input-output pairs but does not directly codify abstract or generalized solutions.

    “DR can help the model see relevant input-output pairs but not directly codify any abstract or generalized solutions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.5. Model scale and capacity impact DC effectiveness · p. 8

    Smaller models generate correct solutions less reliably, leading to a sparse or low-quality memory repository.

    “Smaller models, such as GPT-4o-mini and Claude 3.5 Haiku, generate correct solutions less reliably, leading to a sparse or low-quality memory repository.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4.5. Model scale and capacity impact DC effectiveness · p. 8

    Smaller models struggle with long-context understanding/generation and memory retrieval, leading to inefficient or irrelevant memory usage.

    “Smaller models struggle with long-context understanding/generation and memory retrieval, leading to inefficient or irrelevant memory usage.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9

    DC requires memory curation after each query, but it optimizes efficiency over time by reducing redundant computation and token usage.

    “Although DC requires memory curation after each query, it optimizes efficiency over time by reducing redundant computation and token usage.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9

    Most large LLMs excel at processing lengthy inputs but struggle to generate comparably long and well-organized outputs.

    “Most large LLMs excel at processing lengthy inputs but struggle to generate comparably long 12 and well-organized outputs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Liu et al., 2024b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks · p. 6

    Claude temporarily stored and retrieved compact 'reference guides' on engineering and physics principles, which might have proved beneficial for thematically similar questions.

    “Our examination of the curated memory entries shows that Claude temporarily stored and retrieved compact 'reference guides' on engineering and physics principles, which might have proved beneficial for thematically similar questions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.5. Model scale and capacity impact DC effectiveness · p. 8

    Smaller models often fail to retrieve the most relevant past solutions or misapply retrieved knowledge to new problems.

    “smaller models often fail to retrieve the most relevant past solutions or misapply retrieved knowledge to new problems.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9

    Unlike MV, which passively aggregates outputs, DC actively refines knowledge over time, eliminating errors and improving solution quality.

    “Unlike MV, which passively aggregates outputs, DC actively refines knowledge over time, eliminating errors and improving solution quality.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.6. Test-time task similarity and example ordering can amplify DC's overall impact · p. 8

    Curriculum-style learning may potentially bootstrap performance.

    “This suggests that curriculum-style learning (Bengio et al., 2009), where simpler or archetypal problems are presented first to build a repository of valid heuristics, may potentially bootstrap performance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bengio et al., 2009 source
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.3. Memory curation (DC) fosters generalization and provides gains over full-history-appending (FH) · p. 6

    Excessive uncurated input-output pairs can overwhelm the model's context window, dilute crucial insights, hamper retrieval efficiency, and significantly increase inference costs over time.

    “Excessive uncurated inputoutput pairs can not only overwhelm the model's context window, dilute crucial insights and hamper retrieval efficiency, but also significantly increase inference costs over time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.3. Memory curation (DC) fosters generalization and provides gains over full-history-appending (FH) · p. 6

    DC's selective memory curation ensures that problem-solving tips or code snippets remain readily accessible without clutter, thus facilitating more robust and consistent improvements across consecutive queries.

    “On the other hand, DC's selective memory curation ensures that problem-solving tips or code snippets remain readily accessible without clutter, thus facilitating more robust and consistent improvements across consecutive queries.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationown data
    § 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9

    Larger models can sometimes produce higher-quality strategies that could benefit smaller models if the memory is transferred.

    “We also observed that larger models, such as Claude 3.5 Sonnet and GPT-4o, can sometimes produce higher-quality strategies that, in principle, could benefit smaller models if the memory is transferred.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.4. DC fosters efficient tool usage / code generation · p. 7

    DC has potential to nurture efficient tool-usage: the capacity to recognize when external tools are more robust than internally verbalized chain-of-thought calculations.

    “This inclination toward automation illustrates DC's potential to nurture efficient tool-usage: the capacity to recognize when external tools (e.g., Python, symbolic math engines, or dedicated solvers) are more robust than internally verbalized chain-of-thought calculations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 8

    The initial cost of discovering a robust approach and curating it remains non-trivial.

    “By encoding and reusing well-established techniques (e.g., Python-based solving for Game of 24), models can bypass repeated rediscovery of the same strategies. This significantly cuts down reasoning overhead and token usage in subsequent queries, though the initial cost of discovering a robust approach and curating it remains non-trivial.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § A.3. Memory-augmented generation and reasoning · p. 15

    DC remains fully external and training-free, requiring no gradient-based adaptation.

    “Moreover, unlike methods that assume the model can be retrained or finetuned to incorporate memory items, we remain fully external and training-free; this aligns with 'plug-andplay' usage principle, in which an off-the-shelf model is augmented by an external memory that it reads from and writes to, but does not require any gradient-based adaptation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § tSNE Visualization of the Question Embeddings in GPQA Diamond · p. 17

    DC can help transfer learned strategies within clusters of similar questions.

    “DC can help transfer learned strategies within these clusters”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Cheatsheet Template Use the following format for creating and updating the cheatsheet: NEW CHEATSHEET: ``` <cheatsheet> Version: [Version Number] ## Reusable Code Snippets and Solution Strategies <memory\_item> [...] Figure 14: Prompt used for the memory curator under DC-RS, which is responsible for maintaining an evolving repository of problemsolving strategies, code snippets, and heuristics. The curator selectively retains high-value insights, refines existing strategies, and organizes memory efficiently. This ensures the memory (cheatsheet) remains concise, generalizable, and action-oriented, continuously improving test-time reasoning. (Once again, we note that during the initial phases of our experiments, we used 'cheatsheet' and 'memory' interchangeably to describe stored problem-solving content. However, to maintain consistency, we formally define M i as memory throughout this paper. Since this was purely a semantic choice, we did not find it necessary to rerun our experiments to reflect this terminology shift.) · p. 21

    The memory curator ensures the memory remains concise, generalizable, and action-oriented, continuously improving test-time reasoning.

    “This ensures the memory (cheatsheet) remains concise, generalizable, and action-oriented, continuously improving test-time reasoning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § A.2. Test-time compute and reasoning · p. 14

    While the compute for the first few tasks may be higher, future tasks become simpler because the system can consult and adapt previously curated knowledge.

    “Thus, while the compute for the first few tasks may be higher, future tasks become simpler because the system can consult and adapt previously curated knowledge.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § A.1. Test-time learning (online learning) · p. 14

    DC does not require a new training loop for each batch or scenario; instead, the memory itself is updated to reflect newly found solutions, errors, or strategies without touching the model weights.

    “Furthermore, DC does not require a new training loop for each batch or scenario; instead, the memory itself is updated to reflect newly found solutions, errors, or strategies without touching the model weights.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § B.4.2. Prompt Used by the Generator Model in DR, FH, and DC Approaches · p. 20

    The same structured prompt is used in all non-BL methods, including DC-∅, DR, FH, DC-Cu, and DC-RS.

    “Notably, this same structured prompt is used in all non-BL methods, including DC-∅ , DR, FH, DC-Cu, and DC-RS.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § tSNE Visualization of the Question Embeddings in GPQA Diamond · p. 17

    Without careful curation, erroneous heuristics may also spread.

    “but without careful curation, erroneous heuristics may also spread”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § A.3. Memory-augmented generation and reasoning · p. 15

    DC emphasizes selectively storing the most relevant insights and heuristics.

    “While these works reveal the many strategies for harnessing memory or feedback, DC emphasizes selectively storing the most relevant insights and heuristics.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § A.3. Memory-augmented generation and reasoning · p. 15

    Modern retrieval-augmented LLM approaches generally consult an external corpus of documents to improve factuality and reduce hallucination.

    “Modern retrieval-augmented LLM approaches generally consult an external corpus of documents (i.e., a knowledge base) to improve factuality and reduce hallucination (Lewis et al., 2020; Lazaridou et al., 2023; Vu et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2024b)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Lewis et al., 2020

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Lazaridou et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Vu et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § A.2. Test-time compute and reasoning · p. 14

    DC spreads the computational benefit of extra compute across multiple interactions, effectively learning to use tools more consistently and reliably over time.

    “Thus, DC not only invests extra compute in a single session but spreads that computational benefit across multiple interactions, effectively learning to use tools more consistently and reliably over time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § A.2. Test-time compute and reasoning · p. 14

    DC's memory reduces repetitive mistakes and consolidates and codifies robust solution strategies, effectively amortizing or sharing the cost of initial reflection across future tasks.

    “This memory not only reduces repetitive mistakes, but also consolidates and codifies robust solution strategies-effectively amortizing or 'sharing' the cost of initial reflection across future tasks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § A.2. Test-time compute and reasoning · p. 14

    The memory curation step selectively compiles relevant solutions, heuristics, expansions, or code blocks into a form that can be reused for upcoming queries.

    “The memory curation step selectively compiles relevant solutions, heuristics, expansions, or code blocks into a form that can be reused for upcoming queries.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given
    § A.1. Test-time learning (online learning) · p. 14

    The DC framework focuses explicitly on storing generalizable heuristics, solutions, or meta-level insights that can be repeatedly retrieved and applied across tasks, not just to correct a single solution.

    “Our proposed DC framework differs by focusing explicitly on storing generalizable heuristics, solutions, or meta-level insights that can be repeatedly retrieved and applied across tasks, not just to correct a single solution.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Cheatsheet Template Use the following format for creating and updating the cheatsheet: NEW CHEATSHEET: ``` <cheatsheet> Version: [Version Number] ## Reusable Code Snippets and Solution Strategies <memory\_item> [...] Figure 14: Prompt used for the memory curator under DC-RS, which is responsible for maintaining an evolving repository of problemsolving strategies, code snippets, and heuristics. The curator selectively retains high-value insights, refines existing strategies, and organizes memory efficiently. This ensures the memory (cheatsheet) remains concise, generalizable, and action-oriented, continuously improving test-time reasoning. (Once again, we note that during the initial phases of our experiments, we used 'cheatsheet' and 'memory' interchangeably to describe stored problem-solving content. However, to maintain consistency, we formally define M i as memory throughout this paper. Since this was purely a semantic choice, we did not find it necessary to rerun our experiments to reflect this terminology shift.) · p. 21

    The memory curator selectively retains high-value insights, refines existing strategies, and organizes memory efficiently.

    “The curator selectively retains high-value insights, refines existing strategies, and organizes memory efficiently.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § A.3. Memory-augmented generation and reasoning · p. 15

    The retrieval corpus in modern retrieval-augmented LLM approaches is almost always fixed prior to inference and does not evolve over time.

    “but the retrieval corpus is almost always fixed prior to inference and does not evolve over time.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
60 of 60
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Current language models typically process each input query separately and retain no explicit or implicit memory of past questions, successes, or mistakes during inference.

    “Despite their impressive performance on complex tasks, current language models (LMs) typically operate in a vacuum: Each input query is processed separately, without retaining insights from previous attempts.”
    “Yet they still suffer from one critical limitation: once deployed, these models are fixed prior to deployment and typically retain no explicit or implicit memory of past questions, successes, or mistakes during inference.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The selected benchmarks are challenging tasks where contemporary state-of-the-art LLMs still face limitations and are not near saturation.

    “To rigorously evaluate DC's effectiveness, we focus on challenging tasks where contemporary state-of-the-art LLMs, such as GPT-4o and Claude 3.5, still face limitations. Rather than evaluating on benchmarks where performance is near saturation”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The benchmark tasks used (AIME, GPQA-Diamond, MMLU-Pro, Game of 24, Math Equation Balancer) are valid and representative measures of complex reasoning and test-time learning.

    “Beyond Game of 24, DC yielded significant gains across a range of complex mathematical and algorithmic tasks.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Directly updating language model weights at test time can be computationally expensive and requires the capacity to modify parameters.

    “However, directly updating language model weights at test time can be computationally expensive and requires the capacity to modify parameters.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Retrieval augmentation does not inherently solve iterative improvement or learning from mistakes in the sense of building upon prior solutions at inference time.

    “In practice, retrieval augmentation typically involves selecting and concatenating topk passages from a knowledge-base-while useful for factual queries, the approach, however, does not inherently solve iterative improvement or learning from mistakes in the sense of building upon prior solutions at inference time.”
5 of 5

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?

  • LLMs are more effective when provided with long, detailed contexts and can distill relevance autonomously.

    “Unlike humans, who often benefit from concise generalization, LLMs are more effective when provided with long, detailed contexts and can distill relevance autonomously (Jiang et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2025b; Suzgun et al., 2025).”

    From Agentic Context Engineering: Evolving Contexts for Self-Improving Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as Suzgun et al., 2025

    The Introduction (p. 2) explicitly favors succinct, selectively curated knowledge over long transcripts to avoid ballooning context. Additional Analyses and Discussions (p. 9) says poorly filtered retrieval can confuse models and reduce performance. Although that section says most large LLMs can process lengthy inputs, it does not say long, detailed contexts make them more effective or that they reliably identify what is relevant on their own. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Games with fixed strategies such as Game of 24 may only need a single reusable rule, rendering additional context redundant.

    “Similarly, games with fixed strategies such as Game of 24 (Suzgun et al., 2025) may only need a single reusable rule, rendering additional context redundant.”

    From Agentic Context Engineering: Evolving Contexts for Self-Improving Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as Suzgun et al., 2025

    Section 4.1 (p. 5) reports that GPT-4o repeatedly reused essentially the same stored Python solution for Game of 24. Section 4.3 (p. 6) warns that excessive uncurated context can dilute useful insights, but it does not show that a single rule is sufficient or that additional context is redundant for Game of 24. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Coordination in multi-agent LLM frameworks remains largely episodic and transient: interactions are scoped to a single task instance, and little experience is retained once the task is completed.

    “However, despite this growing complexity, coordination remains largely episodic and transient : interactions are scoped to a single task instance, and little experience is retained once the task is completed (Suzgun et al., 2025).”

    From A Survey of Agent Memory in the Second Half: Towards Self-Evolving and Long-Horizon Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Suzgun et al., 2025

    The Abstract (p. 1) says current language models typically process each query separately without retaining insights from previous attempts. Appendix A.2 (p. 14) likewise contrasts single-question inference with memory spanning queries. These passages support the limited-retention point for LMs, but do not establish that coordination in multi-agent frameworks is generally episodic or scoped to one task instance. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Dynamic Cheatsheet prevents redundant computation by storing accumulated strategies and problem-solving insights for immediate reuse at inference time.

    “Complementing these, Dynamic Cheatsheet (Suzgun et al., 2025) prevents redundant computation by storing accumulated strategies and problem-solving insights for immediate reuse at inference time.”

    From Memory in the Age of AI Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Suzgun et al., 2025

  • A complementary direction treats the working context itself as an evolvable substrate that improves across tasks, either by continually distilling execution experience into structured, reusable context, or by exposing runtime memory state to the agent so that it can autonomously archive and recover its own context during execution.

    “A complementary direction treats the working context itself as an evolvable substrate that improves across tasks, either by continually distilling execution experience into structured, reusable context (Zhang et al., 2025j; Suzgun et al., 2025), or by exposing runtime memory state to the agent so that it can autonomously archive and recover its own context during execution (Xu et al., 2026).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • GPT-4o's GPQA-Diamond gain is assigned to the wrong method

    Major

    The text says GPT-4o rose from 57.1% to 58.1% with DC-RS. Table 1 reports 57.1% for DC-RS; 58.1% belongs to DC-Cu, so the claimed DC-RS gain is absent.

  • Math Equation Balancer accuracy is impossible for 250 examples

    Minor

    With 250 examples, a single-run accuracy changes in increments of 0.4 percentage points. The reported 97.8% would require 244.5 correct answers.

  • GPT-4o's full-history AIME 2024 result is misstated

    Minor

    The text gives GPT-4o's AIME 2024 full-history accuracy as 6.7%, whereas Table 2 reports 13.3%.

  • Claude Haiku's GPQA-Diamond accuracy is impossible for 198 questions

    Minor

    For 198 questions, neither 86 nor 87 correct answers rounds to 43.7%: they yield 43.4% and 43.9%, respectively.

  • Two AIME 2020-2024 percentages do not fit 133 questions

    Minor

    For 133 questions, nine correct answers round to 6.8%, not 6.7%, and 51 correct answers round to 38.3%, not 38.4%. Neither printed value is attainable to one decimal place from an integer number correct.

5 of 5

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Bottou, L. and Cun, Y. Large scale online learning. Advances in neural information processing systems , 16, 2003.
  2. Feng, T., Han, P., Lin, G., Liu, G., and You, J. Thought-retriever: Don't just retrieve raw data, retrieve thoughts, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=SkDNQbMQba .
  3. Khandelwal, U., Levy, O., Jurafsky, D., Zettlemoyer, L., and Lewis, M. Generalization through memorization: Nearest neighbor language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2020. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=HklBjCEKvH .
  4. Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., K¨ uttler, H., Lewis, M., Yih, W.-t., Rockt¨ aschel, T., et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledgeintensive nlp tasks. Advances in neural information processing systems , 33:9459-9474, 2020.
  5. Liu, Y., Kothari, P., Van Delft, B., Bellot-Gurlet, B., Mordan, T., and Alahi, A. Ttt++: When does self-supervised test-time training fail or thrive? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34:21808-21820, 2021.
  6. Madaan, A., Tandon, N., Clark, P., and Yang, Y. Memoryassisted prompt editing to improve gpt-3 after deployment. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pp. 2833-2861, 2022.
  7. Shi, W., Min, S., Yasunaga, M., Seo, M., James, R., Lewis, M., Zettlemoyer, L., and Yih, W.-t. REPLUG: Retrievalaugmented black-box language models. In Duh, K., Gomez, H., and Bethard, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pp. 83718384, Mexico City, Mexico, June 2024. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2024. naacl-long.463. URL https://aclanthology.org/2024. naacl-long.463/ . · DOI
  8. Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., Le, Q. V., Chi, E. H., Narang, S., Chowdhery, A., and Zhou, D. Selfconsistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=1PL1NIMMrw .
  9. Yang, L., Yu, Z., Zhang, T., Cao, S., Xu, M., Zhang, W., Gonzalez, J. E., and Cui, B. Buffer of thoughts: Thoughtaugmented reasoning with large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 37: 113519-113544, 2025.
  10. Zelikman, E., Wu, Y., Mu, J., and Goodman, N. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:15476-15488, 2022.
  11. Zhang, K., Kang, Y., Zhao, F., and Liu, X. LLM-based medical assistant personalization with short- and longterm memory coordination. In Duh, K., Gomez, H., and Bethard, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Suzgun, M., Yuksekgonul, M., Bianchi, F., Jurafsky, D., & Zou, J.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W6910554319
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Keywords
adaptive memory, persistent memory, code reuse, problem-solving strategies, mathematical problem solving, GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, MMLU-Pro

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-24.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-24.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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