PreprintCited by 0AI-based Problem Solving and PlanningReinforcement Learning in RoboticsPsychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience

PAST-Bench: Benchmarking the Foundations of Recursive Self-Improvement in Personal Agents

Open access
Xue, Shuhan, Ding, Zixin, Shen, Yichen, Wang, Yinjie, Yin, Zhenfei, Wu, Yingcheng, Chen, Yuxin, Wang, Mengdi +1 more·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Recursive self-improvement requires agents to turn accumulated experience into better future behavior. Personal AI agents offer a concrete setting for studying this capability because they retain preferences, task histories, tool routines, and learned skills across sessions. Yet whether retained experience actually improves them over time has not been systematically tested. We introduce PAST-Bench, a benchmark designed to isolate this question. Each agent runs through ordered sequences of fresh-session tasks under matched conditions that turn retained experience on and off. It spans 26 scenarios and 204 episodes across memory, procedural reuse, information gathering, and update. We report both later-task gains and whether those gains follow the intended save, retrieve, and update pathway. Across seven base models and four agent frameworks, improvement is real but uneven across capabilities. Agents with the same headline gain can differ markedly in whether that gain is supported by evidence of the intended pathway. Guided by these findings, we develop Hermes+, which extends Hermes with five targeted interventions across stages of the agent loop. Hermes+ raises the average gain from retained experience and provides clearer pathway evidence, with its strongest improvement on tasks requiring outdated state to be replaced, although the effect remains capability- and model-dependent. Together, PAST-Bench and Hermes+ provide an evaluation and diagnostic foundation for studying how persistent agents can progress from retaining experience to systematically improving through it. Code: https://github.com/Gen-Verse/PAST-Bench

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.2608.04003

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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

  • Cognitive Architectures for Language Agents

    Sumers, T. R., Yao, S., Narasimhan, K., & Griffiths, T. L. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.02427 · Cited by 72 · cited 2× · see citing works

    “Procedural-reuse families isolate the imperative pathway (Anderson and Lebiere, 2014; Sumers et al., 2023) for domain-specific, technical routines—SOPs, playbooks, build/deploy pipelines, incident-triage flows, induced engineering workflows (Hong et al., 2024).”
  • 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 · cited 1× · see citing works

    “The second runs sequential task streams in which state propagates across tasks without interruption (Wei et al., 2025; Zheng et al., 2025).”
  • Terminal-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks in Command Line Interfaces

    Merrill, M. A., Shaw, A. G., Carlini, N., Li, B., Raj, H., Bercovich, I., Shi, L., Shin, J. Y., Walshe, T., Buchanan, E. K., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.11868 · cited 1×

    “Interactive agent benchmarks (Drouin et al., 2024; Koh et al., 2024; Liu et al., 2024; Merrill et al., 2026; Mialon et al., 2024; Xie et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2026b) reduce evaluation to a one-shot per-task score on a fresh session, not a trajectory.”
    Self-citation
  • Recursive Harness Self-Improvement

    Lee, H., Xu, J., Seely, J., Lee, D., Zaharia, M., & Tang, Y. (2026) · arXiv · cited 1×

    “Recursive self-improvement (RSI) concerns the ability of an AI system to use experience generated through its own operation to improve its future capabilities (Lee et al., 2026; Qu et al., 2024; Ren et al., 2026; Wang et al., 2026; Yin et al., 2025).”

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Xue, S., Ding, Z., Shen, Y., Wang, Y., Yin, Z., Wu, Y., Chen, Y., Wang, M., & Yang, L.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7172532696
Cited by
0
References
4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (2037026, 2313131)
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 › Psychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience
Keywords
recursive self-improvement, personal AI agents, Hermes, memory retention, agent evaluation benchmarks

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