PreprintCited by 1AI-based Problem Solving and PlanningArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

GRASP: Gated Regression-Aware Skill Proposer for Self-Improving LLM Agents

Open access
Moll, Johannes, Corbeil, Jean-Philippe, Pan, Jiazhen, Hadamitzky, Martin, Rueckert, Daniel, Adams, Lisa, Bressem, Keno·2026·arXiv

Abstract

LLM agents acting in structured environments fail in operational rather than conversational ways, and reliability depends on procedural knowledge of the environment. Prior self-improvement methods accumulate natural-language guidance without checking that each new item preserves previously correct behavior, so a note that fixes one trajectory can silently regress another. We introduce GRASP (Gated Regression-Aware Skill Proposer), which treats agent improvement as a sequence of edits to a bounded skill library, admitting each candidate only if it produces a net improvement on a balanced held-out probe under a hard regression budget. We evaluate GRASP across five base models on two FHIR-based clinical benchmarks, which score procedural reliability against FHIR state rather than clinical correctness or patient outcomes. On MedAgentBench, GRASP lifts gpt-oss-120b from 40.6% to 88.8%, exceeds the strongest of five self-improvement baselines by 21.0 points, and improves every other base model by 17.2 to 40.3 points. Ablations attribute the gain to comparative proposal generation, the acceptance gate, and the hard regression budget rather than to skill writing itself, which without validation is no better than using no skills. Granting the same acceptance gate to all five baselines lifts each of them in-domain and none of them out of distribution, isolating the gain to the gate applied to a bounded, editable library rather than to held-out validation itself. The mechanism helps in non-clinical environments where tasks recur with verifiable structure and is flat where the action space is open-ended. Frozen libraries transfer across models and across benchmarks that share a tool-calling convention and degrade under interface mismatch.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2605.29668

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • GRASP applies regression-aware acceptance to edits of a bounded skill library, while SKILL.nb uses lifecycle governance and validation gates to improve the durability of reusable workflows.

    “GRASP (Moll et al., 2026) applies regression-aware acceptance to edits of a bounded skill library, while SKILL.nb(Hattami et al., 2026) uses lifecycle governance and validation gates to improve the durability of reusable workflows.”

    From ADIAS: Automated Design of Interactive Agentic Systems (2026) · cites this paper as Moll 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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Marc-Antoine Allard, Arnaud Teinturier, Victor Xing, and Gautier Viaud. 2026. Experiential reflective learning for self-improving llm agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.24639. · arXiv
  2. Eric Chen, Sam Postelnik, Kameron Black, Yixing Jiang, and Jonathan H Chen. 2025. Medagentbench v2: Improving medical llm agent design. In Biocom- puting 2026: Proceedings of the Pacific Symposium, pages 354-371. World Scientific.
  3. Xiang Deng, Yu Gu, Boyuan Zheng, Shijie Chen, Sam Stevens, Boshi Wang, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. 2023. Mind2web: Towards a generalist agent for the web. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:28091-28114.
  4. Yao Fu, Dong-Ki Kim, Jaekyeom Kim, Sungryull Sohn, Lajanugen Logeswaran, Kyunghoon Bae, and Honglak Lee. 2024. Autoguide: Automated gener- ation and selection of context-aware guidelines for large language model agents. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:119919-119948.
  5. Vincent Hsiao, Mark Roberts, and Leslie Smith. 2025. Procedural knowledge improves agentic llm work- flows. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.07568. · arXiv
  6. Michael Y Hu, Benjamin Van Durme, Jacob Andreas, and Harsh Jhamtani. 2025. Sample-efficient online learning in lm agents via hindsight trajectory rewrit- ing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.10304. · arXiv
  7. Carlos E Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2024. Swe-bench: Can language mod- els resolve real-world github issues? In International Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pages 54107-54157.
  8. Ryo Kamoi, Yusen Zhang, Nan Zhang, Jiawei Han, and Rui Zhang. 2024. When can llms actually cor- rect their own mistakes? a critical survey of self- correction of llms. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:1417-1440.
  9. Omar Khattab, Arnav Singhvi, Paridhi Maheshwari, Zhiyuan Zhang, Keshav Santhanam, Sri Vard- hamanan, Saiful Haq, Ashutosh Sharma, Thomas T. Joshi, Hanna Moazam, Heather Miller, Matei Za- haria, and Christopher Potts. 2023. Dspy: Compiling declarative language model calls into self-improving pipelines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03714. · arXiv
  10. James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil Rabinowitz, Joel Veness, Guillaume Desjardins, Andrei A. Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Ag- nieszka Grabska-Barwinska, Demis Hassabis, Clau- dia Clopath, Dharshan Kumaran, and Raia Hadsell. 2017. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 114(13):3521-3526.
  11. Gyubok Lee, Elea Bach, Eric Yang, Tom Pollard, Alis- tair Johnson, Edward Choi, Yugang jia, and Jong Ha Lee. 2025. Fhir-agentbench: Benchmarking llm agents for realistic interoperable ehr question answer- ing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.19319. · arXiv
  12. Nelson F Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paran- jape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. 2024a. Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts. Transactions of the associ- ation for computational linguistics, 12:157-173.
  13. Xiao Liu, Hao Yu, Hanchen Zhang, Yifan Xu, Xuanyu Lei, Hanyu Lai, Yu Gu, Hangliang Ding, Kaiwen Men, Kejuan Yang, Shudan Zhang, Xiang Deng, Ao- han Zeng, Zhengxiao Du, Chenhui Zhang, Sheng Shen, Tianjun Zhang, Yu Su, Huan Sun, and 3 others. 2024b. Agentbench: Evaluating llms as agents. In In- ternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pages 52989-53046.
  14. Johannes Moll, Jannik Lübberstedt, Christoph Nuern- bergk, Jacob Stroh, Luisa Mertens, Anna Purcarea, Christopher Zirn, Zeineb Benchaaben, Fabian Drexel, Hartmut Häntze, Anirudh Narayanan, Friedrich Put- tkammer, Andrei Zhukov, Jacqueline Lammert, Se- bastian Ziegelmayer, Markus Graf, Marion Högner, Marcus Makowski, Florian Bassermann, and 5 others. 2026. Agentic clinical reasoning over longitudinal myeloma records: a retrospective evaluation against expert consensus. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.24473. · arXiv
  15. Charles Packer, Sarah Wooders, Kevin Lin, Vivian Fang, Shishir G Patil, Ion Stoica, and Joseph E Gonzalez. 2023. Memgpt: Towards llms as operating systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08560. · arXiv
  16. JV Roig. 2025. How do llms fail in agentic scenarios? a qualitative analysis of success and failure scenarios of various llms in agentic simulations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.07497. · arXiv
  17. Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Eric Hambro, Luke Zettle- moyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. Advances in neural information process- ing systems, 36:68539-68551.
  18. Weixiang Shen, Bailiang Jian, Jun Li, Che Liu, Johannes Moll, Xiaobin Hu, Daniel Rueckert, Hongwei Bran Li, and Jiazhen Pan. 2026. Evo-medagent: Beyond one-shot diagnosis with agents that remember, reflect, and improve. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.14475. · arXiv
  19. Freda Shi, Xinyun Chen, Kanishka Misra, Nathan Scales, David Dohan, Ed H Chi, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Large language models can be easily distracted by irrelevant context. In Inter- national Conference on Machine Learning, pages 31210-31227.
  20. PMLR.
  21. Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. 2023. Re- flexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:8634-8652.
  22. Mohit Shridhar, Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Yonatan Bisk, Adam Trischler, and Matthew Hausknecht. 2021. ALFWorld: Aligning Text and Embodied Environments for Interactive Learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).
  23. Karan Singhal, Shekoofeh Azizi, Tao Tu, S. Sara Mah- davi, Jason Wei, Hyung Won Chung, Nathan Scales, Ajay Tanwani, Heather Cole-Lewis, Stephen Pfohl, Perry Payne, Martin Seneviratne, Paul Gamble, Chris Kelly, Nathaneal Scharli, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Philip Mansfield, Blaise Aguera y Arcas, Dale Web- ster, and 11 others. 2023. Large language models encode clinical knowledge. Nature, 620(7972):172- 180.
  24. Chenxi Wang, Zhuoyun Yu, Xin Xie, Wuguannan Yao, Runnan Fang, Shuofei Qiao, Kexin Cao, Guozhou Zheng, Xiang Qi, Peng Zhang, and Shumin Deng. 2026. Skillx: Automatically constructing skill knowledge bases for agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.04804. · arXiv
  25. Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Man- dlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. 2023. Voyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291. · arXiv
  26. Jiongxiao Wang, Qiaojing Yan, Yawei Wang, Yijun Tian, Soumya Smruti Mishra, Zhichao Xu, Megha Gandhi, Panpan Xu, and Lin Lee Cheong. 2025. Re- inforcement learning for self-improving agent with skill library. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.17102. · arXiv
  27. Wujiang Xu, Zujie Liang, Kai Mei, Hang Gao, Juntao Tan, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2026. A-mem: Agentic memory for llm agents. Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, 38:17577-17604.
  28. Chengrun Yang, Xuezhi Wang, Yifeng Lu, Hanxiao Liu, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, and Xinyun Chen. 2024. Large language models as optimizers. In In- ternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pages 12028-12068.
  29. Shunyu Yao, Howard Chen, John Yang, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2022a. Webshop: Towards scalable real-world web interaction with grounded language agents. In Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems, volume 35, pages 20744-20757.
  30. Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2022b. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629. · arXiv
  31. Andrew Zhao, Daniel Huang, Quentin Xu, Matthieu Lin, Yong-Jin Liu, and Gao Huang. 2024. Expel: Llm agents are experiential learners. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 19632-19642.
  32. Shuyan Zhou, Frank F. Xu, Hao Zhu, Xuhui Zhou, Robert Lo, Abishek Sridhar, Xianyi Cheng, Tianyue Ou, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, Uri Alon, and Gra- ham Neubig. 2024. Webarena: A realistic web en- vironment for building autonomous agents. In Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pages 15585-15606.
  33. Kunlun Zhu, Zijia Liu, Bingxuan Li, Muxin Tian, Yingx- uan Yang, Jiaxun Zhang, Pengrui Han, Qipeng Xie, Fuyang Cui, Weijia Zhang, Xiaoteng Ma, Xiaodong Yu, Gowtham Ramesh, Jialian Wu, Zicheng Liu, Pan Lu, James Zou, and Jiaxuan You. 2025. Where llm agents fail and how they can learn from failures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25370. GPT-5.4 self-train 85.4 ±10.4 80.6 ±6.7 Gemini self-train 71.4 ±1.8 41.7 ±20.9 GPT-5.4 → Gemini 76.6 ±10.9 71.1 ±1.9 gpt-oss self-train 88.8 ±5.8 56.3 ±14.5 GPT-5.4 → gpt-oss 76.0 ±7.7 77.8 ±1.0 SkillX GPT-5.4 self-train 44.8 ±0.9 3.3 ±2.9 Gemini self-train 54.2 ±3.6 38.3 ±1.7 GPT-5.4 → Gemini 56.8 ±0.9 35.0 ±1.7 gpt-oss self-train 53.1 ±4.6 21.3 ±3.6 GPT-5.4 → gpt-oss 46.4 ±8.6 17.2 ±3.8 Evo-MedAgent GPT-5.4 self-train 43.8 ±4.1 1.7 ±1.7 Gemini self-train 55.2 ±1.8 15.6 ±2.5 GPT-5.4 → Gemini 54.2 ±1.8 18.3 ±6.0 gpt-oss self-train 67.8 ±14.1 31.3 ±21.7 GPT-5.4 → gpt-oss 44.3 ±3.9 8.3 ±3.3 Seq. Memory GPT-5.4 self-train 47.4 ±5.0 15.6 ±25.5 Gemini self-train 53.9 ±3.3 2.5 ±1.2 GPT-5.4 → Gemini 54.2 ±3.3 11.1 ±7.5 gpt-oss self-train 41.2 ±5.5 16.7 ±15.6 GPT-5.4 → gpt-oss 44.8 ±11.9 13.3 ±10.4 Batch Memory GPT-5.4 self-train 46.4 ±0.9 16.7 ±3.3 Gemini self-train 32.0 ±25.4 2.5 ±1.2 GPT-5.4 → Gemini 49.5 ±5.9 12.2 ±7.9 gpt-oss self-train 34.4 ±8.0 13.0 ±8.1 GPT-5.4 → gpt-oss 37.0 ±11.7 14.4 ±8.6 ExpeL GPT-5.4 self-train 43.8 ±1.6 11.7 ±3.3 Gemini self-train 53.6 ±1.8 17.2 ±2.5 GPT-5.4 → Gemini 52.6 ±0.9 18.9 ±4.2 gpt-oss self-train 49.1 ±6.3 12.0 ±5.2 GPT-5.4 → gpt-oss 39.6 ±3.9 12.2 ±3.5 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moll, J., Corbeil, J.-P., Pan, J., Hadamitzky, M., Rueckert, D., Adams, L., & Bressem, K.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
Pages
10390-10415
OpenAlex
W7162779040
Cited by
0
References
0
FWCI
0.00
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Bayern Innovativ
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
LLM agents, human development, regression analysis, skill library, procedural knowledge, FHIR, tool calling

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