Dynamic Cheatsheet: Test-Time Learning with Adaptive Memory
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
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 - Also stated in: § 4.1. DC enables test-time learning and reduces repetitive errors · p. 6 · plain
- 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 - Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 2 · hedged
- 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
- Findingown data§ Abstract · p. 1
GPT-4o's success rate on the Game of 24 increased from about 10% under baseline to 99% under DC-RS.
“Similarly, GPT-4o's success rate on the Game of 24 puzzle increased from about 10% to 99% after the model discovered and reused a Python-based solution.”
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 2 · plain
“GPT-4o's baseline performance (10%) increased to 99% under DC.”
- Also stated in: § 4.1. DC enables test-time learning and reduces repetitive errors · p. 6 · plain
“GPT-4o's Game of 24 accuracy leaps from 10% to 99% under DC-RS.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 2 · plain
- Findingown data§ 4.1. DC enables test-time learning and reduces repetitive errors · p. 5
Claude 3.5 Sonnet showed only a marginal gain on Game of 24, moving from 12% to 14%.
“In contrast, Claude 3.5 Sonnet showed marginal gain, moving from 12% to 14%.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ Abstract · p. 1
DC's test-time learning enhances performance substantially across a range of tasks without needing explicit ground-truth labels or human feedback.
“This test-time learning enhances performance substantially across a range of tasks without needing explicit ground-truth labels or human feedback.”
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 2 · plain
“It is a flexible online-learning approach that enables a black-box LLM to improve itself without needing any explicit ground truth labels or human feedback.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 2 · plain
- Findingown data§ Abstract · p. 1
Claude achieved a 9% improvement in GPQA-Diamond 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 · plain
“On GPQA-Diamond, which tests specialized domain questions, DC lifted Claude by over 9%.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 2 · plain
- Findingown data§ 4.5. Model scale and capacity impact DC effectiveness · p. 7
Claude 3.5 Haiku's gains on AIME 2025 were weaker, reaching only 13.3% under DC-∅ and DC-Cu.
“But gains on AIME 2025 were weaker, reaching only 13.3% under DC-∅ and DC-Cu.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks · p. 6
For MMLU-Pro Physics, Claude 3.5 Sonnet rose by up to 8.0% (from 74% to 82%).
“For MMLU-Pro Eng. and Physics, Claude 3.5 Sonnet exhibited consistent gains, rising by up to 8.0% in Physics (from 74% to 82%).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks · p. 6
GPT-4o experienced only a slight increase from 57.1% to 58.1% on GPQA-Diamond with DC-RS.
“By contrast, GPT-4o experienced only a slight increase from 57.1% to 58.1% with DC-RS;”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.5. Model scale and capacity impact DC effectiveness · p. 7
Claude 3.5 Haiku's accuracy on AIME 2024 rose from 10.0% baseline to 36.7% under DC-Cu.
“Table 3, for instance, shows that Claude 3.5 Haiku achieved moderate gains under DC, with its accuracy on AIME 2024 rising from 10.0% (baseline) to 36.7% under DC-Cu.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
MV yielded no improvements over single-shot inference.
“MV, which selects the most common answer from three independent generations, yielded no improvements over single-shot inference.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
DC performs better than majority voting (MV).
“DC performs better than majority voting (MV).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks · p. 6
On GPQA-Diamond, Claude 3.5 Sonnet improved from 59.6% to 68.7% under DC-RS.
“On GPQA-Diamond, Claude 3.5 Sonnet improved from 59.6% to 68.7% under DC-RS, a robust 9.1% gain purely from test-time adaptation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
Additional experiments with 'R1' models such as DeepSeek R1 and o1 showed minimal or inconsistent improvements.
“Additional experiments with 'R1' models such as DeepSeek R1 and o1 similarly showed minimal or inconsistent improvements.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given§ 4.6. Test-time task similarity and example ordering can amplify DC's overall impact · p. 8
In AIME, discovering a geometry or combinatorics strategy allowed for easy transfer across questions of analogous structure.
“Similarly, in AIME, discovering a geometry or combinatorics strategy allowed for easy transfer across questions of analogous structure.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks · p. 6
For Claude 3.5 Sonnet, performance on AIME 2024 increased from 23.3% to 50.0% under DC-Cu.
“A similar upward trend appeared on AIME 2024 (23.3% to 50.0%) and AIME 2025 (6.7% to 36.7%) under DC-Cu.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks · p. 6
For Math Equation Balancer, GPT-4o improved from 50.0% to near-perfect accuracy (99-100%).
“As Table 1 shows, the baseline performance for Claude 3.5 Sonnet (44.8%) rose to 98-100% with DC-RS and DC-Cu, while GPT-4o similarly improved from 50.0% to near-perfect accuracy (99-100%).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks · p. 6
On GPQA-Diamond, DR achieved 63.6% for Claude 3.5 Sonnet.
“DR (63.6%) demonstrated that retrieval alone helps, but the further jump to 68.7% highlights how memory curation and synthesis can yield additional benefits.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
Retrieval-based variants (e.g., DC-RS) can substantially improve accuracy.
“While retrieval-based variants (e.g., DC-RS) can substantially improve accuracy, poorly filtered retrieval mechanisms can introduce confusion, particularly when presented with highly diverse or loosely related queries.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks · p. 6
For GPT-4o, AIME 2025 score increased from 6.7% to 20.0%.
“Its AIME 2024 performance raised from 20.0% to 40.0% under DC-RS, while its AIME 2025 score climbed from 6.7% to 20.0%.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given§ 4.6. Test-time task similarity and example ordering can amplify DC's overall impact · p. 8
In Game of 24 and Math Equation Balancer, once GPT-4o identified an efficient solution, it reused it consistently for subsequent tasks.
“In both Game of 24 and Math Equation Balancer, once GPT-4o identified an efficient solution, it reused it consistently for subsequent tasks.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
On AIME 2024, MV performed identically to the baseline (23.3%).
“As seen in Table 4, on AIME 2024, MV performed identically to the baseline (23.3%), while on AIME 2025, it remained at 6.7%, offering no tangible gain.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks · p. 6
GPT-4o observed slight decreases from baseline on MMLU-Pro Eng. and Physics tasks.
“GPT-4o, on the other hand, observed slight decreases from the baseline on these tasks, suggesting that domain complexity and baseline knowledge gaps may attenuate DC's benefits if curated memory is less reliable or consistent.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
Even with DC-∅, MV slightly underperformed (33.3% vs. 36.7%).
“Even with DC-∅ , MVslightly underperformed (33.3% vs. 36.7%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
Smaller models, such as GPT-4o-mini, show limited gains under DC.
“Finally, we note that smaller models, such as GPT-4o-mini, show limited gains under DC, as seen in Table 3.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
On AIME 2025, MV remained at 6.7%.
“As seen in Table 4, on AIME 2024, MV performed identically to the baseline (23.3%), while on AIME 2025, it remained at 6.7%, offering no tangible gain.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
We observed instances where the model merely references or abbreviates the existing memory instead of explicitly rewriting it.
“We observed instances where the model merely references or abbreviates the existing memory (e.g., 'Previous content [...] preserved') instead of explicitly rewriting it.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
GPT-4o's performance occasionally dipped in GPQA-Diamond due to suboptimal retrieval choices.
“For example, in our experiments, GPT-4o's performance occasionally dipped in GPQA-Diamond due to suboptimal retrieval choices.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks · p. 6
DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks.
“## 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks · p. 6
For Math Equation Balancer, Claude 3.5 Sonnet baseline performance (44.8%) rose to 98-100% with DC-RS and DC-Cu.
“As Table 1 shows, the baseline performance for Claude 3.5 Sonnet (44.8%) rose to 98-100% with DC-RS and DC-Cu, while GPT-4o similarly improved from 50.0% to near-perfect accuracy (99-100%).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.4. DC fosters efficient tool usage / code generation · p. 7
Targeted memory curation in DC-RS leads to greater accuracy gains compared to full history retention.
“Results indicate that targeted memory curation in DC-RS leads to greater accuracy gains compared to full history retention, supporting the need for structured, self-updating knowledge mechanisms.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
Errors and their corrections often cluster in a latent embedding space.
“Our experiments suggest that errors and their corrections often cluster in a latent embedding space.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning§ 4.5. Model scale and capacity impact DC effectiveness · p. 8
On GPQA-Diamond, GPT-4o-mini's performance remained largely stagnant or slightly declined under memory-based adaptation.
“On GPQA-Diamond, GPT-4o-mini's performance, however, remained largely stagnant or slightly declined under memory-based adaptation, suggesting that it struggled to leverage stored information effectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks · p. 6
For Claude 3.5 Sonnet, performance on AIME 2020-2024 increased from 6.7% to 40.6% under DC-RS.
“For Claude 3.5 Sonnet, performance on AIME 2020-2024 surged from 6.7% to 40.6% under DC-RS.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks · p. 6
For GPT-4o, AIME 2024 performance increased from 20.0% to 40.0% under DC-RS.
“Its AIME 2024 performance raised from 20.0% to 40.0% under DC-RS, while its AIME 2025 score climbed from 6.7% to 20.0%.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks · p. 6
For Claude 3.5 Sonnet, performance on AIME 2025 increased from 6.7% to 36.7% under DC-Cu.
“A similar upward trend appeared on AIME 2024 (23.3% to 50.0%) and AIME 2025 (6.7% to 36.7%) under DC-Cu.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ B.3. Evolution of Memory Content under Dynamic Cheatsheet · p. 18
DC-Cu experiences slightly greater fluctuations in memory content than DC-RS in the second half of inference in Game of 24.
“DC-Cu experiences slightly greater fluctuations in the second half of inference.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ tSNE Visualization of the Question Embeddings in GPQA Diamond · p. 17
Correct and incorrect answers often cluster in latent embedding space.
“Note that correct and incorrect answers often cluster in latent embedding space.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ A.2. Test-time compute and reasoning · p. 14
Once an LLM under DC recognizes a systematic way to handle a certain class of problems, it can store that approach in memory and repeatedly retrieve it.
“Our empirical findings too illustrate that once an LLM under DC recognizes a systematic way (e.g., Python-based brute force algoritgm) to handle a certain class of problems (like arithmetic puzzles), it can store that approach in memory and repeatedly retrieve it.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ Abstract · p. 1
DC adapts LMs' problem-solving skills on the fly without modifying their underlying parameters.
“Unlike fine-tuning or static retrieval methods, DC adapts LMs' problem-solving skills on the fly, without modifying their underlying parameters”
- Also stated in: § 2. Dynamic Cheatsheet (DC) Methodology · p. 3 · plain
“Rather than fine-tuning the underlying weights, DC tracks successes and failures of the model at test time, then selectively stores heuristics, strategies, or short textual artifacts that can guide the LLM in future instances.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 2. Dynamic Cheatsheet (DC) Methodology · p. 3 · plain
- Interpretationreasoning§ 4.1. DC enables test-time learning and reduces repetitive errors · p. 5
DC's ultimate success hinges on the model's innate capacity to identify and encode robust, reusable strategies.
“This underscores that while DC provides the framework for test-time adaptation, its ultimate success hinges on the model's innate capacity to identify and encode robust, reusable strategies.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ Abstract · p. 1
Dynamic Cheatsheet (DC) is a lightweight framework that endows a black-box language model with a persistent, evolving memory at inference time.
“Here, we present Dynamic Cheatsheet (DC), a lightweight framework that endows a black-box LM with a persistent, evolving memory.”
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 2 · plain
“In this work, we present Dynamic Cheatsheet (DC), a simple and intuitive framework that endows black-box LLMs with a persistent, evolving memory at inference time.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Current language models typically process each input query separately and retain no explicit or implicit memory of past questions, successes, or mistakes during inference.
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 2 · plain
- Interpretationown data§ 4.1. DC enables test-time learning and reduces repetitive errors · p. 5
Effective memory usage, in which past solutions are retrieved and generalized, is the main driver of GPT-4o's transformation from ad-hoc solver to near-perfect performer in Game of 24.
“The large gap between 19% (DC-∅ ) and 99% (DC-RS) confirms that effective memory usage, in which past solutions are retrieved and generalized, is the main driver of GPT-4o's transformation from ad-hoc solver to near-perfect performer in Game of 24.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ Abstract · p. 1
DC enables models to store and reuse accumulated strategies, code snippets, and general problem-solving insights at inference time.
“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.”
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 2 · plain
“DC dynamically curates a compact library of reusable strategies, solution sketches, and code snippets.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 2 · plain
- Interpretationown data§ 4.1. DC enables test-time learning and reduces repetitive errors · p. 5
Claude 3.5 Sonnet did not internalize a generalized approach for Game of 24 but continued to rely on manual arithmetic solutions.
“Despite DC's scaffolding, Claude did not internalize a generalized approach but instead continued to rely on manual arithmetic solutions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 4.5. Model scale and capacity impact DC effectiveness · p. 8
Iterative refinement stalls because the stored knowledge consists mostly of incorrect or partial attempts.
“As a result, iterative refinement stalls because the stored knowledge consists mostly of incorrect or partial attempts.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 8
By encoding and reusing well-established techniques, models can bypass repeated rediscovery of the same strategies, cutting down reasoning overhead and token usage in subsequent queries.
“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 paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
Faulty heuristics that slip into memory can be equally amplified.
“However, faulty heuristics that slip into memory can be equally amplified.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 4.5. Model scale and capacity impact DC effectiveness · p. 7
The effectiveness of DC is strongly tied to the model's scale and underlying generative capacity.
“Our current results indicate that the effectiveness of DC is strongly tied to the model's scale and underlying generative capacity.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 4.6. Test-time task similarity and example ordering can amplify DC's overall impact · p. 8
Tasks arranged to present related questions early may accelerate and improve the model's test-time learning.
“Consequently, tasks arranged to present related questions early may accelerate and improve the model's test-time learning.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
DC's memory curation after each query can demand precise reproduction or modification of prior knowledge.
“DC's memory curation after each query can demand precise reproduction or modification of prior knowledge.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 4.5. Model scale and capacity impact DC effectiveness · p. 8
This results in inconsistent performance under DC-RS, particularly in tasks requiring complex reasoning or strategic adaptation.
“This results in inconsistent performance under DC-RS, particularly in tasks requiring complex reasoning or strategic adaptation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
DC's sequential structure poses challenges for large-scale parallel or batch tasks requiring independent inference.
“However, its sequential structure still poses challenges for large-scale parallel or batch tasks requiring independent inference.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks · p. 6
Retrieval can, in some cases, introduce confusion, especially if suboptimal examples are recalled.
“retrieval can, in some cases, introduce confusion, especially if suboptimal examples are recalled.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
Such truncated memory updates can reduce the quality of stored heuristics over time.
“Such truncated memory updates can reduce the quality of stored heuristics over time.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks · p. 6
Structured test-time-produced memory can help tackle difficult math problems.
“These boosts suggests that structured test-timeproduced memory can help tackle difficult math problems.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks · p. 6
Memory curation and synthesis yield additional benefits beyond retrieval alone on GPQA-Diamond for Claude 3.5 Sonnet.
“DR (63.6%) demonstrated that retrieval alone helps, but the further jump to 68.7% highlights how memory curation and synthesis can yield additional benefits.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
As the model retrieves and refines solutions, memory maintenance becomes a net gain rather than a cost.
“As the model retrieves and refines solutions, memory maintenance becomes a net gain rather than a cost.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 4.6. Test-time task similarity and example ordering can amplify DC's overall impact · p. 8
DC thrives when test examples share structural similarities.
“Another central insight is that DC thrives when test examples share structural similarities.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 4.5. Model scale and capacity impact DC effectiveness · p. 8
For DC to be effective, the base model must produce correct solutions with sufficient frequency to populate the memory with high-quality, reusable strategies.
“For DC to be effective, the base model must produce correct solutions with sufficient frequency to populate the memory with high-quality, reusable strategies.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
In these cases, these models' generative ability appears too restricted to produce reliable strategies for storage or to interpret retrieved heuristics effectively.
“In these cases, these models' generative ability appears too restricted to produce reliable strategies for storage or to interpret retrieved heuristics effectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks · p. 6
The success of retrieval-based adaptation partly depends on model-specific generation and curation capabilities.
“This contrast between different models underscores how the success of retrieval-based adaptation partly depends on model-specific generation and curation capabilities.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
Poorly filtered retrieval mechanisms can introduce confusion, particularly when presented with highly diverse or loosely related queries.
“While retrieval-based variants (e.g., DC-RS) can substantially improve accuracy, poorly filtered retrieval mechanisms can introduce confusion, particularly when presented with highly diverse or loosely related queries.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
Once a model acquires a high-quality heuristic for a cluster of related queries, it can apply this knowledge to tightly embedded neighbors.
“Once a model acquires a high-quality heuristic for a cluster of related queries, it can apply this knowledge to tightly embedded neighbors.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
If a smaller model lacks the generative capacity to interpret or refine those strategies correctly, its performance can stall or degrade.
“However, if a smaller model lacks the generative capacity to interpret or refine those strategies correctly, its performance can stall or degrade.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks · p. 6
Domain complexity and baseline knowledge gaps may attenuate DC's benefits if curated memory is less reliable or consistent.
“GPT-4o, on the other hand, observed slight decreases from the baseline on these tasks, suggesting that domain complexity and baseline knowledge gaps may attenuate DC's benefits if curated memory is less reliable or consistent.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 4.5. Model scale and capacity impact DC effectiveness · p. 8
GPT-4o-mini struggled to leverage stored information effectively.
“On GPQA-Diamond, GPT-4o-mini's performance, however, remained largely stagnant or slightly declined under memory-based adaptation, suggesting that it struggled to leverage stored information effectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
Memory entries cannot fully compensate for inadequate base capability.
“This indicates that memory entries, while helpful, cannot fully compensate for inadequate base capability.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
Without sufficiently accurate and efficient base solutions, memory curation cannot yield substantial gains.
“Without sufficiently accurate and efficient base solutions, memory curation cannot yield substantial gains.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 8
DC reduces the need to 'reinvent the wheel' for each query.
“One key insight is that DC reduces the need to 'reinvent the wheel' for each query.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
Memory-based adaptation is far more effective than simple statistical voting in complex reasoning tasks.
“This confirms that memory-based adaptation is far more effective than simple statistical voting in complex reasoning tasks.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9
Effective DC demands a capable foundation model to seed and refine the curated knowledge.
“This limitation ties back to the core premise that effective DC demands a capable foundation model to seed and refine the curated knowledge.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation§ A.1. Test-time learning (online learning) · p. 14
For large-scale, black-box APIs such as GPT-3 or Claude, one often lacks the ability to perform parameter updates easily, making direct test-time weight updating difficult or infeasible.
“For large-scale, black-box APIs (e.g., GPT-3 or Claude), one often lacks the ability to perform parameter updates easily, thereby making such an approach difficult, if not completely infeasible (Shi et al., 2024).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Shi et al., 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning§ A.2. Test-time compute and reasoning · p. 14
DC treats consecutive tasks in a sequence as a chance to refine a persistent, external store of learned lessons.
“DC differs in that we treat consecutive tasks in a sequence as a chance to refine a persistent, external store of learned lessons.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation§ A.2. Test-time compute and reasoning · p. 14
Inference-time expansions are typically ephemeral: once a solution is generated, subsequent tasks or input samples do not generally benefit from the heavy compute spent earlier, unless the user manually engineers advanced prompt-sharing or in-context demonstration strategies.
“They are, however, typically ephemeral: once a solution is generated, subsequent tasks or input samples do not generally benefit from the heavy compute spent earlier, unless the user manually engineers advanced prompt-sharing or in-context demonstration strategies. Cf. (Zelikman et al., 2022).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Zelikman et al., 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning§ A.1. Test-time learning (online learning) · p. 14
The proposed approach allows a language model to iteratively record solutions, explanations, or heuristics in an external memory component over successive interactions, avoiding weight updates entirely.
“Our approach aligns with this direction by allowing an LM to iteratively record solutions, explanations, or heuristics in an external memory component over successive interactions, avoiding weight updates entirely.”
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. 14Contemporary 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 checkedMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ Abstract · p. 1In 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- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 2 · plain
The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown data§ 1. Introduction · p. 2Claude 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- Also stated in: § Abstract · p. 1 · plain
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 1. Introduction · p. 2DC 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingreasoning§ 1. Introduction · p. 2Smaller 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9DC-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 claimThe quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown data§ 4.5. Model scale and capacity impact DC effectiveness · p. 8On 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.3. Memory curation (DC) fosters generalization and provides gains over full-history-appending (FH) · p. 6GPT-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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.3. Memory curation (DC) fosters generalization and provides gains over full-history-appending (FH) · p. 7GPT-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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.3. Memory curation (DC) fosters generalization and provides gains over full-history-appending (FH) · p. 6Sonnet 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.5. Model scale and capacity impact DC effectiveness · p. 8GPT-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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown data§ 4.4. DC fosters efficient tool usage / code generation · p. 7GPT-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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.5. Model scale and capacity impact DC effectiveness · p. 8On 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.5. Model scale and capacity impact DC effectiveness · p. 7Claude 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9On 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks · p. 6Models 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9The solutions were far too verbose and long.
“The solutions were far too verbose and long.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.2. DC provides substantial improvements across various challenging reasoning benchmarks · p. 6DC-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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingreasoning§ 4.4. DC fosters efficient tool usage / code generation · p. 7GPT-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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.3. Memory curation (DC) fosters generalization and provides gains over full-history-appending (FH) · p. 7This 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown data§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9In ablation experiments, we observed mixed results.
“In our ablation experiments, we observed mixed results.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ B.3. Evolution of Memory Content under Dynamic Cheatsheet · p. 18Both 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ 2.2. DC with Retrieval & Synthesis (DC-RS) · p. 3DC-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 claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationnone given§ 2.2. DC with Retrieval & Synthesis (DC-RS) · p. 3DC-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 claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ 2.2. DC with Retrieval & Synthesis (DC-RS) · p. 4DC-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 claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Interpretationnone given§ 3.1. Tasks and Datasets · p. 4The 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. 2GPT-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- Also stated in: § 4.1. DC enables test-time learning and reduces repetitive errors · p. 5 · plain
May combine two claims.
Interpretationcitation§ Abstract · p. 1DC'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.
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · p. 2 · plain
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ 1. Introduction · p. 2DC 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ 3.1. Tasks and Datasets · p. 5GPQA-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. 4Full-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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Interpretationnone given§ 2.3. Baselines · p. 4Dynamic 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ 4.5. Model scale and capacity impact DC effectiveness · p. 8Smaller 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 claimProbably 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. 8Smaller 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9DC 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9Most 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. 6Claude 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ 4.5. Model scale and capacity impact DC effectiveness · p. 8Smaller 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9Unlike 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 claimProbably 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. 8Curriculum-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. 6Excessive 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ 4.3. Memory curation (DC) fosters generalization and provides gains over full-history-appending (FH) · p. 6DC'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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationown data§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 9Larger 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationreasoning§ 4.4. DC fosters efficient tool usage / code generation · p. 7DC 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone given§ 5. Additional Analyses and Discussions · p. 8The 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ A.3. Memory-augmented generation and reasoning · p. 15DC 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationreasoning§ tSNE Visualization of the Question Embeddings in GPQA Diamond · p. 17DC 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 claimProbably 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. 21The 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ A.2. Test-time compute and reasoning · p. 14While 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationnone given§ A.1. Test-time learning (online learning) · p. 14DC 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 claimProbably 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. 20The 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
Interpretationreasoning§ tSNE Visualization of the Question Embeddings in GPQA Diamond · p. 17Without careful curation, erroneous heuristics may also spread.
“but without careful curation, erroneous heuristics may also spread”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Interpretationreasoning§ A.3. Memory-augmented generation and reasoning · p. 15DC 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ A.3. Memory-augmented generation and reasoning · p. 15Modern 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. 14DC 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ A.2. Test-time compute and reasoning · p. 14DC'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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Interpretationnone given§ A.2. Test-time compute and reasoning · p. 14The 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 claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Interpretationnone given§ A.1. Test-time learning (online learning) · p. 14The 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 claimProbably 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. 21The 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Premisenone given§ A.3. Memory-augmented generation and reasoning · p. 15The 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
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.”
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 measuredGames 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 measuredCoordination 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 measuredDynamic 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).”
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
Dynamic Cheatsheet maintains a compact, task-adaptive summary that is continuously updated to surface only the most salient information for ongoing reasoning, reducing repeated large-scale retrieval and context expansion at inference time.
“Dynamic Cheatsheet further instantiates this idea by maintaining a compact, task-adaptive summary that is continuously updated to surface only the most salient information for ongoing reasoning, reducing repeated large-scale retrieval and context expansion at inference time (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 context collapse issue is not specific to Dynamic Cheatsheet but reflects a fundamental risk of end-to-end context rewriting with LLMs, where accumulated knowledge can be abruptly erased instead of preserved.
“While we highlight this through Dynamic Cheatsheet (Suzgun et al., 2025), the issue is not specific to that method; rather, it reflects a fundamental risk of end-to-end context rewriting with LLMs, where accumulated knowledge can be abruptly erased instead of preserved.”
From Agentic Context Engineering: Evolving Contexts for Self-Improving Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as Suzgun et al., 2025
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
MajorThe 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.
“GPT-4o experienced only a slight increase from 57.1% to 58.1% with DC-RS”
“| GPQA Diamond | 59.6 | 60.1 | 63.6 | 61.1 | 68.7 | 57.1 | 57.1 | 55.1 | 58.1 | 57.1 |”
Math Equation Balancer accuracy is impossible for 250 examples
MinorWith 250 examples, a single-run accuracy changes in increments of 0.4 percentage points. The reported 97.8% would require 244.5 correct answers.
“| Math Eqn. Balancer | 44.8 | 56.4 | 60.4 | 100 | 97.8 | 50.0 | 88.0 | 100 | 100 | 99.2 |”
“We compiled 250 arithmetic expressions for this task.”
GPT-4o's full-history AIME 2024 result is misstated
MinorThe text gives GPT-4o's AIME 2024 full-history accuracy as 6.7%, whereas Table 2 reports 13.3%.
“GPT-4o managed a baseline of 20.0% but fell to 6.7% using FH”
“| AIME 2024 | 23.3 | 26.7 | 50.0 | 20.0 | 13.3 | 40.0 |”
Claude Haiku's GPQA-Diamond accuracy is impossible for 198 questions
MinorFor 198 questions, neither 86 nor 87 correct answers rounds to 43.7%: they yield 43.4% and 43.9%, respectively.
“| GPQA-Diamond | 43.4 | 41.9 | 43.7 | 49.0 |”
“GPQA-Diamond contains 198 expertvalidated questions”
Two AIME 2020-2024 percentages do not fit 133 questions
MinorFor 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.
“| AIME 2020-24 | 6.7 | 30.1 | 39.1 | 38.4 | 40.6 | 9.8 | 24.1 | 24.1 | 20.3 | 24.8 |”
“AIME 2020-2024 11 (133 questions).”
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Bottou, L. and Cun, Y. Large scale online learning. Advances in neural information processing systems , 16, 2003.
- 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 .
- 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 .
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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 .
- 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.
- Zelikman, E., Wu, Y., Mu, J., and Goodman, N. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:15476-15488, 2022.
- 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
GEPA: Reflective Prompt Evolution Can Outperform Reinforcement Learning
Agrawal, L. A., Tan, S., Soylu, D., Ziems, N., Khare, R., Opsahl-Ong, K., Singhvi, A., Shandilya, H., Ryan, M. J., Jiang, M., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.19457 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
From Storage to Experience: A Survey on the Evolution of LLM Agent Memory Mechanisms
Luo, J., Tian, Y., Cao, C., Luo, Z., Lin, H., Li, K., Kong, C., Yang, R., & Ma, J. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.2069 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“…researchers focus on distilling experience into textual rules: Ouyang et al. (2025) abstracts key decision principles through contrastive analysis of successful and failed trajectories, while Suzgun et al. (2025) proposes dynamically generated "prompt lists" for real-time heuristic guidance.”
Agentic Context Engineering: Evolving Contexts for Self-Improving Language Models
Zhang, Q., Hu, C., Upasani, S., Ma, B., Hong, F., Kamanuru, V., Rainton, J., Wu, C., Ji, M., Li, H., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.04618 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“We use the official implementation released by the authors (Suzgun et al., 2025a) and set it to use the cumulative mode (DC-CU).”
Self-citationMDTeamGPT: Mitigating Context Collapse and Enabling Self-Evolution in Medical Multi-Agent Reasoning
Chen, K., Li, X., Yang, T., Wang, H., Yang, G., Huo, J., & Gao, Y. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.1427 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Memory in the Age of AI Agents
Hu, Y., Liu, S., Yue, Y., Zhang, G., Liu, B., Zhu, F., Lin, J., Guo, H., Dou, S., Xi, Z., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.13564 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
EvoX: Meta-Evolution for Automated Discovery
Liu, S., Agarwal, S., Maheswaran, M., Cemri, M., Li, Z., Mang, Q., Naren, A., Boneh, E., Cheng, A., Pan, M. Z., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.23413 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Recent work applies evolutionary search to guide LLM-driven optimization, spanning prompt optimization [10, 13, 18, 35, 32, 9] and program or algorithm discovery [22, 28, 17, 1, 3, 14, 31].”
LatentEvolve: Self-Evolving Test-Time Scaling in Latent Space
Zhang, G., Meng, F., Wan, G., Li, Z., Wang, K., Yin, Z., Bai, L., & Yan, S. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.24771
“…2025a; Wang et al., 2025b; Tang et al., 2025) are leveraged to contextually enhance LLM capabilities; and (III) skill condensation , where reusable tools ( e.g. , APIs, MCPs) are encapsulated as functional assets (Zheng et al., 2025a; Suzgun et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2025b; Qiu et al., 2025b;a).”
Evo-Memory: Benchmarking LLM Agent Test-time Learning with Self-Evolving Memory
Wei, T., Sachdeva, N., Coleman, B., He, Z., Bei, Y., Ning, X., Ai, M., Li, Y., He, J., Chi, E. H., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.20857 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
ReasoningBank: Scaling Agent Self-Evolving with Reasoning Memory
Ouyang, S., Yan, J., Hsu, I.-H., Chen, Y., Jiang, K., Wang, Z., Han, R., Le, L. T., Daruki, S., Tang, X., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.25140
“This streaming setting highlights two key challenges: (i) how to extract and preserve useful memory from past trajectories, and (ii) how to effectively leverage such memory for future queries to avoid redundantly re-discovering already successful strategies or repeating past mistakes.”
A Survey of Agent Memory in the Second Half: Towards Self-Evolving and Long-Horizon Agents
Huang, W.-C., Zhang, W., Liang, Y., Bei, Y., Chen, Y., Feng, T., Pan, X., Tan, Z., Wang, Y., Wei, T., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.06052
Self-citationEvo-Harness: Context-to-Harness Skill Compilation for Self-Evolving Agents
Wei, T., Shi, Z., Lin, M., He, B., Liu, Z., Sang, Y., Bei, Y., Ning, X., Zou, J., Li, T.-W., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.15071
Self-citationRecursive Self-Evolving Agents via Held-Out Selection
Nguyen, M., Nguyen, Q., & Vuong, P. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.28374
PREPING: Zero-Task Agent Memory Construction via Self-Practice
Choi, Y., Park, S., Kang, M., Baek, J., & Hwang, S. J. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.13880
Meta Context Engineering via Agentic Skill Evolution
Ye, H., He, X., Arak, V., Dong, H., & Song, G. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.21557 · Cited by 1
- 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)
- arXiv
- 2504.07952
- OpenAlex
- W6910554319
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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