PREPING: Zero-Task Agent Memory Construction via Self-Practice
Open accessAbstract
Agent memory is typically constructed either offline from curated demonstrations or online from post-deployment interactions. However, regardless of how it is built, an agent faces a cold-start gap when first introduced to a new environment without any task-specific experience available. In this paper, we study pre-task memory construction: whether an agent can build procedural memory before observing any target-environment tasks, using only self-generated synthetic practice. Yet, synthetic interaction alone is insufficient, as without controlling what to practice and what to store, synthetic tasks become redundant, infeasible, and ultimately uninformative, and memory further degrades quickly due to unfiltered trajectories. To overcome this, we present Preping, a proposer-guided memory construction framework. At its core is proposer memory, a structured control state that shapes future practice. A Proposer generates synthetic tasks conditioned on this state, a Solver executes them, and a Validator determines which trajectories are eligible for memory insertion while also providing feedback to guide future proposals. Experiments on AppWorld, BFCL v3, and MCP-Universe show that Preping substantially improves over a no-memory baseline and achieves performance competitive with strong playbook-based methods built from offline or online experience, with deployment cost $2.99\times$ lower on AppWorld and $2.23\times$ lower on BFCL v3 than online memory construction. Further analyses reveal that the main benefit does not come from synthetic volume alone, but from proposer-side control over feasibility, redundancy, and coverage, combined with selective memory updates.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
To the authors' knowledge, PREPING is the only existing method that also builds memory from self-generated tasks instead of training tasks.
“To our knowledge, PREPING (Choi et al., 2026) is the only existing method that also builds memory from self-generated tasks instead of training tasks.”
From DAEDALUS: Bootstrapping Agent Memory from Self-Generated Tasks (2026) · cites this paper as Choi et al., 2026
Section 4.1 says PREPING builds memory from proposer-guided synthetic tasks, while the Task-Informed Methods section says the compared offline method uses human-defined tasks. The paper distinguishes PREPING from the methods it discusses, but these passages do not establish that it is the only existing method to build memory from self-generated tasks. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPREPING builds a playbook from self-proposed tasks, updating it from each task's feasibility and completion scores.
“PREPING (Choi et al., 2026), closest to our setting, builds a playbook from self-proposed tasks, updating it from each task's feasibility and completion scores.”
From DAEDALUS: Bootstrapping Agent Memory from Self-Generated Tasks (2026) · cites this paper as Choi et al., 2026
The experimental setup (Task-Informed Methods, page unavailable) says the Validator scores each synthetic task for feasibility and completion, and the AppWorld ACE Curator passage describes updating an existing playbook from task reflections. But the method’s asymmetric-update passage says only feasible task–trajectory pairs are eligible for solver memory; the claim’s suggestion that the playbook is updated from each task’s scores omits that restriction. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredDAEDALUS outperforms PREPING, which also builds memory from self-generated tasks.
“It outperforms PREPING (Choi et al., 2026), which also builds memory from self-generated tasks, and is competitive with existing methods that use the benchmark training tasks.”
From DAEDALUS: Bootstrapping Agent Memory from Self-Generated Tasks (2026) · cites this paper as Choi et al., 2026
Few methods generate tasks to build memory instead of updating model weights.
“Few methods generate tasks to build memory instead: Voyager (Wang et al., 2024) proposes tasks through an automatic curriculum, SkillWeaver (Zheng et al., 2025) practices self-proposed skills on websites, and PREPING (Choi et al., 2026), closest to our setting, builds a playbook from self-proposed tasks, updating it from each task's feasibility and completion scores.”
From DAEDALUS: Bootstrapping Agent Memory from Self-Generated Tasks (2026) · cites this paper as Choi et al., 2026
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Tushar Khot, Harsh Trivedi, Matthew Finlayson, Yao Fu, Kyle Richardson, Peter Clark, and Ashish Sabharwal. Decomposed prompting: A modular approach for solving complex tasks. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023. URL https:// openreview.net/forum?id=_nGgzQjzaRy.
- Siru Ouyang, Jun Yan, I-Hung Hsu, Yanfei Chen, Ke Jiang, Zifeng Wang, Rujun Han, Long T. Le, Samira Daruki, Xiangru Tang, Vishy Tirumalashetty, George Lee, Mahsan Rofouei, Hangfei Lin, Jiawei Han, Chen-Yu Lee, and Tomas Pfister. Reasoningbank: Scaling agent self-evolving with reasoning memory. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2026. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=jL7fwchScm.
- Shishir G. Patil, Tianjun Zhang, Xin Wang, and Joseph E. Gonzalez. Gorilla: Large language model connected with massive APIs. In Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=tBRNC6YemY.
- Shishir G Patil, Huanzhi Mao, Fanjia Yan, Charlie Cheng-Jie Ji, Vishnu Suresh, Ion Stoica, and Joseph E. Gonzalez. The berkeley function calling leaderboard (BFCL): From tool use to agentic evaluation of large language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2025.
- Yujia Qin, Shihao Liang, Yining Ye, Kunlun Zhu, Lan Yan, Yaxi Lu, Yankai Lin, Xin Cong, Xiangru Tang, Bill Qian, Sihan Zhao, Lauren Hong, Runchu Tian, Ruobing Xie, Jie Zhou, Mark Gerstein, Dahai Li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. ToolLLM: Facilitating large language models to master 16000+ real-world APIs. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=dHng2O0Jjr.
- Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Eric Hambro, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. In Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=Yacmpz84TH.
- Zora Zhiruo Wang, Jiayuan Mao, Daniel Fried, and Graham Neubig. Agent workflow memory. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2025. URL https://openreview. net/forum?id=NTAhi2JEEE.
- Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik R. Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id= WE_vluYUL-X.
- Qizheng Zhang, Changran Hu, Shubhangi Upasani, Boyuan Ma, Fenglu Hong, Vamsidhar Kamanuru, Jay Rainton, Chen Wu, Mengmeng Ji, Hanchen Li, Urmish Thakker, James Zou, and Kunle Olukotun. Agentic context engineering: Evolving contexts for self-improving language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2026. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=eC4ygDs02R.
- Longtao Zheng, Rundong Wang, Xinrun Wang, and Bo An. Synapse: Trajectory-as-exemplar prompting with memory for computer control. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=Pc8AU1aF5e.
- Yifei Zhou, Sergey Levine, Jason E. Weston, Xian Li, and Sainbayar Sukhbaatar. Self- challenging language model agents. In Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=9yusqX9DpR.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
DAEDALUS: Bootstrapping Agent Memory from Self-Generated Tasks
Edy, A., Conti, M., Xing, V., Allard, M.-A., Benhamdane, N., & Viaud, G. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.08048
“Few methods generate tasks to build memory instead: Voyager (Wang et al., 2024) proposes tasks through an automatic curriculum, SkillWeaver (Zheng et al., 2025) practices self-proposed skills on websites, and PREPING (Choi et al., 2026), closest to our setting, builds a playbook from self-proposed tasks, updating it f…”
Influential
- Authors
- Choi, Y., Park, S., Kang, M., Baek, J., & Hwang, S. J.
- Affiliations
- Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KR)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2605.13880
- OpenAlex
- W7161255430
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence in Games
- Keywords
- agent memory, cold start
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
