Managing Procedural Memory in LLM Agents: Control, Adaptation, and Evaluation
Open accessAbstract
Procedural memory is increasingly used to improve LLM agents on recurring workplace tasks, yet its ability to produce reusable skills remains poorly understood. We introduce AFTER, a benchmark of 382 realistic enterprise tasks spanning six professional roles and 22 procedural skills, designed to evaluate how skills transfer across tasks, roles, and model backbones. The benchmark includes controlled evaluation settings for local improvement, cross-task transfer, cross-role transfer, and cross-model generalization. Experiments show that procedural memory delivers consistent gains in industrial workflows: a single refinement round improves aggregate performance by 3.7-6.7 points, while skills evolved from diverse multi-model execution traces achieve 73.1% cross-model test accuracy, outperforming all single-model trace sources. We further find that some skills generalize broadly across tasks and models, whereas others become specialized to role-specific workflows and lose effectiveness under transfer. These results provide practical guidance for building, evaluating, and deploying procedural memory systems in production agent platforms.
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?
These semantic facts and procedural skills are further externalized as explicit, composable, and shareable skills that agents autonomously induce, revise, and maintain, and that modern agent harnesses expose through context engineering and standardized tool-mediation protocols.
“which are further externalized as explicit, composable, and shareable skills that agents autonomously induce, revise, and maintain, and that modern agent harnesses expose through context engineering and standardized tool-mediation protocols (Wang et al., 2025c; Anthropic, 2025; Belikova et al., 2026; Song et al., 2026; Zhang et al., 2026a).”
From A Survey of Agent Memory in the Second Half: Towards Self-Evolving and Long-Horizon Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Belikova et al., 2026
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredProcedural memory evaluation is beginning to standardize around dedicated benchmarks that measure both the task-level utility of procedural knowledge and its transfer across tasks, roles, and models.
“Finally, while work like Evaluating Long-Term Memory signals growing interest in assessment (Terranova et al., 2025), procedural memory evaluation is beginning to standardize around dedicated benchmarks that measure both the task-level utility of procedural knowledge and its transfer across tasks, roles, and models (Li et al., 2026; Belikova 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 Belikova et al., 2026
From the self-evolving perspective, the skill library itself becomes the object of evolution: agents revise skills from their own execution traces through iterative diagnose-and-revise cycles, autonomously maintain library health by merging, repairing, or retiring skills to contain accumulated skill-level technical debt, and learn which memory skills to induce and evolve over long horizons.
“From the self-evolving perspective, the skill library itself then becomes the object of evolution: agents revise skills from their own execution traces through iterative diagnose-and-revise cycles (Belikova et al., 2026), autonomously maintain library health by merging, repairing, or retiring skills to contain accumulated skill-level technical debt (Song et al., 2026), and learn which memory”
From A Survey of Agent Memory in the Second Half: Towards Self-Evolving and Long-Horizon Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Belikova 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: 19
- Fadhel Ayed, Ali Maatouk, Nicola Piovesan, Anto- nio De Domenico, Mérouane Debbah, and Zhi-Quan Luo. 2024. Hermes: A large language model frame- work on the journey to autonomous networks. CoRR, abs/2411.06490. · DOI
- Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D. Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, and 12 others. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901.
- Jun Shern Chan, Neil Chowdhury, Oliver Jaffe, James Aung, Dane Sherburn, Evan Mays, Giulio Starace, Kevin Liu, Leon Maksin, Tejal Patwardhan, Alek- sander Madry, and Lilian Weng. 2025. Mle-bench: Evaluating machine learning agents on machine learning engineering. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2025, Singapore, April 24-28, 2025. OpenReview.net.
- Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Yunxuan Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, Al- bert Webson, Shixiang Shane Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suzgun, Xinyun Chen, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Alex Castro-Ros, Marie Pellat, Kevin Robinson, and 16 others. 2024. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 25(70):1-53.
- Shaokang Jiang and Daye Nam. 2026. Beyond the prompt: An empirical study of cursor rules. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.18925. To appear at MSR 2026. · DOI
- Carlos E. Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik R. Narasimhan. 2024. Swe-bench: Can language mod- els resolve real-world github issues? In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024.
- Qirui Mi, Zhijian Ma, Mengyue Yang, Haoxuan Li, Yisen Wang, Haifeng Zhang, and Jun Wang. 2026. ProcMEM: Learning reusable procedural memory from experience via non-parametric PPO for LLM agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.01869. · arXiv
- Grégoire Mialon, Clémentine Fourrier, Thomas Wolf, Yann LeCun, and Thomas Scialom. 2024. GAIA: a benchmark for general AI assistants. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024.
- Changle Qu, Sunhao Dai, Xiaochi Wei, Hengyi Cai, Shuaiqiang Wang, Dawei Yin, Jun Xu, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2025. From exploration to mastery: Enabling llms to master tools via self-driven interactions. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2025, Singapore, April 24-28, 2025. OpenReview.net.
- Kiran Ramnath, Kang Zhou, Sheng Guan, Soumya Sm- ruti Mishra, and 1 others. 2025. A systematic survey of automatic prompt optimization techniques. In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.
- Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. 2023. Re- flexion: language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. In Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, December 10 -16, 2023.
- Yuheng Tang, Kaijie Zhu, Bonan Ruan, Chuqi Zhang, Michael Yang, Hongwei Li, Suyue Guo, Tianneng Shi, Zekun Li, Christopher Kruegel, Giovanni Vigna, Dawn Song, William Yang Wang, Lun Wang, Yan- gruibo Ding, Zhenkai Liang, and Wenbo Guo. 2026. DevOps-Gym: Benchmarking AI agents in software DevOps cycle. In The Fourteenth International Con- ference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2026. OpenReview.net.
- Pablo Villalobos, Anson Ho, Jaime Sevilla, Tamay Be- siroglu, Lennart Heim, and Marius Hobbhahn. 2024. Position: Will we run out of data? limits of llm scal- ing based on human-generated data. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning.
- Hjalmar Wijk, Tao Lin, Joel Becker, Sami Jawhar, Neev Parikh, Thomas Broadley, Lawrence Chan, Michael Chen, Josh Clymer, Jai Dhyani, Elena Ericheva, Katharyn Garcia, Brian Goodrich, Nikola Jurkovic, Holden Karnofsky, Megan Kinniment, Aron Lajko, Seraphina Nix, Lucas Sato, and 4 others. 2025. RE- Bench: Evaluating frontier AI R&D capabilities of language model agents against human experts. In Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2025.
- Chengrun Yang, Xuezhi Wang, Yifeng Lu, Hanxiao Liu, Quoc V. Le, Denny Zhou, and Xinyun Chen. 2024. Large language models as optimizers. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024. OpenReview.net.
- Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2023. ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations. OpenReview.net.
- Lechen Zhang, Tolga Ergen, Lajanugen Logeswaran, Moontae Lee, and David Jurgens. 2024. Sprig: Improving large language model performance by system prompt optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14826. · arXiv
- Qixing Zhou, Jiacheng Zhang, Haiyang Wang, Rui Hao, Jiahe Wang, Minghao Han, Yuxue Yang, Shuzhe Wu, Feiyang Pan, Lue Fan, Dandan Tu, and Zhaoxiang Zhang. 2026b. FeatureBench: Benchmarking agen- tic coding for complex feature development. In The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2026. OpenReview.net.
- 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 The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Rep- resentations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024. OpenReview.net.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
- Authors
- Belikova, J., Parchiev, R., Egorov, E., Davydenko, G., Gusev, G., Savchenko, A., & Makarenko, M.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2606.23127
- OpenAlex
- W7165652918
- 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 › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Keywords
- procedural memory, LLM agents, skill transfer, cross-task transfer, cross-model generalization, benchmark, skill refinement
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
