CoEx - Co-evolving World-model and Exploration
Open accessAbstract
Planning in modern LLM agents relies on the utilization of LLM as an internal world model, acquired during pretraining. However, existing agent designs fail to effectively assimilate new observations into dynamic updates of the world model. This reliance on the LLM's static internal world model is progressively prone to misalignment with the underlying true state of the world, leading to the generation of divergent and erroneous plans. We introduce a hierarchical agent architecture, CoEx, in which hierarchical state abstraction allows LLM planning to co-evolve with a dynamically updated model of the world. CoEx plans and interacts with the world by using LLM reasoning to orchestrate dynamic plans consisting of subgoals, and its learning mechanism continuously incorporates these subgoal experiences into a persistent world model in the form of a neurosymbolic belief state, comprising textual inferences and code-based symbolic memory. We evaluate our agent across a diverse set of agent scenarios involving rich environments and complex tasks including ALFWorld, PDDL, and Jericho. Our experiments show that CoEx outperforms existing agent paradigms in planning and exploration.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Robust planning is achieved through the realization of internal worlds characterized by consistency in causality.
“Consequently, planning with robustness is achieved through the realization of internal worlds characterized by consistency in causality (Tang et al., 2024a; Kim and won Hwang, 2025; Bohnet et al., 2025).”
From From Storage to Experience: A Survey on the Evolution of LLM Agent Memory Mechanisms (2026) · cites this paper as Kim and won Hwang, 2025
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
“Consequently, planning with robustness is achieved through the realization of internal worlds characterized by consistency in causality (Tang et al., 2024a; Kim and won Hwang, 2025; Bohnet et al., 2025).”
- Authors
- Kim, M., & Hwang, S.-W.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2507.22281
- OpenAlex
- W6948039922
- 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 › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence in Games
- Keywords
- LLM agents, world models, hierarchical planning, symbolic memory, exploration, agent alignment, ALFWorld, PDDL, Jericho
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review