CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 0AI-based Problem Solving and PlanningReinforcement Learning in RoboticsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

DAEDALUS: Bootstrapping Agent Memory from Self-Generated Tasks

Open access
Edy, Antoine, Conti, Max, Xing, Victor, Allard, Marc-Antoine, Benhamdane, Nawfal, Viaud, Gautier·2026·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2610.08048arXiv 2610.08048
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

LLM agents often lack the operational knowledge to act reliably in new environments, as they must discover specific tool behaviors or environment conventions on their own. Without memory of past attempts, they repeat the same mistakes across tasks, leading to more task failures and longer trajectories. To address this, agentic systems typically rely on human-written guidelines or on procedural memory built from training tasks and an oracle verifier, both of which require prior knowledge of the environment. We present DAEDALUS, a method for bootstrapping reusable agent memory from self-generated practice without existing tasks or oracle verifiers. DAEDALUS pairs two agents: an explorer that interacts with the environment to generate challenging yet solvable tasks, and a solver that attempts them. A heuristic is derived from each solver failure and accepted only after the solver repeatedly succeeds with that heuristic in context. These outcomes also provide feedback for the explorer to refine the difficulty of future tasks. Accepted heuristics are then consolidated into a memory bank for test-time use. Across AppWorld, $τ^2$-bench, and AutomationBench, DAEDALUS improves mean success rates by up to 15.9 points and pass^5 by up to 2.2x over a no-memory baseline, and is competitive with methods using training tasks, at a lower inference cost than most. We show that performance gains already emerge with a small exploration budget, and that its heuristics also benefit agents from other model families. Our ablations further reveal that solver traces provide the key information needed to derive effective heuristics, while factorizing early discoveries makes exploration more cost-efficient. Beyond memory construction, we find that the tasks generated by DAEDALUS can serve as a proxy for benchmark tasks when ranking models by performance. Code and artifacts: www.github.com/illuin-tech/daedalus.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

DAEDALUS is a training-free method that bootstraps reusable agent memory from self-generated practice tasks, without curated training tasks or an oracle verifier, by pairing an Explorer that proposes and calibrates tasks with a Solver whose failures are converted into heuristics that are only banked after repeated success. Across AppWorld, τ²-bench, and AutomationBench it improves mean success rate by up to 15.9 points and pass^5 by up to 2.2× over a no-memory baseline, competitive with methods that use benchmark training tasks.

Key findings

  • DAEDALUS raises MSR over the no-memory baseline by 15.9, 10.0, and 4.3 points on AppWorld, τ²-bench (retail), and AutomationBench (Operations) respectively, with pass^5 increasing 1.7× to 2.2× (Table 1: 44.3→60.2, 57.5→67.5, 31.7→36.0 MSR).
  • It is the strongest method without training tasks, outperforming PREPING on both metrics, and is within error margins of the best training-task method in four of six MSR/pass^5 columns; DAEDALUS-curated (same Solver loop on curated tasks) ranks first within error margins on every benchmark and metric.
  • Heuristics transfer across model families: all nine auxiliary/solver × base-agent combinations on AppWorld show positive gains (e.g., GPT-5.4-mini gains +16.8 from the Qwen bank vs. +15.9 from its own; DeepSeek-V4-Flash gains +3.0 to +8.3, with an 80.6% no-memory baseline leaving less room).
  • Ablations show solver traces are the key signal: exploration-only variants (A: 35.7 MSR, B: 38.7) underperform the no-memory baseline (44.3), while adding Solver traces gives +15.8 MSR (C: 54.5) and retry-based validation adds +4.5 (D: 59.0). Guidelines and the environment survey cut generation cost by 48% relative to (D) and raise acceptance from 86.7% to 97.8%.
  • The LLM judge agrees substantially with official verifiers (κ_bench 0.729–0.807; κ_inter 0.848–1.000), with precision exceeding recall on every benchmark.
  • Five sessions already deliver more than half the improvement reached at the 90-session peak; beyond 90 sessions MSR decreases as the bank grows (53.7 at 140 sessions vs. 60.2 at 90).
  • Generated tasks rank nine models consistently with the AppWorld test set (Kendall's τ = 0.89, p < .001 for both MSR and pass^3; 34 of 36 model pairs ordered consistently).

Methods

  • Design: a one-time budget of n practice sessions, each running an outer Explorer loop (propose a task, complete it to establish feasibility, refine up to N_r = 5 times based on too-easy/too-hard feedback) and an inner Solver loop (attempt, LLM Judge against self-written success conditions, Extractor writes/revises a heuristic after each failure). A heuristic is accepted only after N_s = 3 consecutive successes following at least one failure; N_f = 8 caps total failures. A Surveyor defines a target task distribution and a Consolidator merges accepted heuristics into a frozen bank injected once at task start.
  • Data: AppWorld (90/168 training/test tasks), τ²-bench retail (74/40), AutomationBench Operations (30/70 stratified split); one generation session per training task; results averaged over five independent inference runs, reporting MSR and pass^5 with standard errors plus inference cost at OpenAI standard-tier prices.
  • Models: GPT-5.4 / GPT-5.4-mini on AppWorld and τ²-bench, GPT-5.6 Terra / GPT-5.6 Luna on AutomationBench; larger model for auxiliary agents, smaller for solver and base agent. Baselines: no-memory, PREPING, and five training-task methods (ExpeL, AutoGuide, ERL, ReasoningBank, ACE) reimplemented on the same harness.

Limitations

  • Stated: memory is built once before deployment and frozen at test time; preliminary attempts at iterative test-time updating "did not yield consistent gains." DAEDALUS assumes a resettable environment where the explorer can set up and complete tasks alone, so dual-control settings (e.g., τ²-bench telecom) are not supported. Success relies on an imperfect LLM judge (κ_bench 0.73–0.81). Consolidation at scale is unresolved: the 140-session bank falls below the 90-session bank, and hierarchical consolidation does not recover the loss (54.6 vs. 53.7 MSR), with most of the gap in three small task categories where heuristics lost their scope.
  • Stated: performance declined beyond 90 sessions as memory grew, leaving open questions on bank composition/coverage across environments, consolidation as banks grow, and retrieval mechanisms for large memories.
  • Evident from the text: generation is compute-heavy — 1,225 solver rollouts on AppWorld, about 6× ExpeL and 14× single-attempt methods, with generation cost dominated by the explorer and judge (109.7 USD for the full pipeline vs. 67.2 with a smaller auxiliary model). Absolute success rates on generated tasks differ from the official test set because tasks were calibrated to GPT-5.4-mini, so the proxy is validated only for ranking, not absolute scores. The 90-session AppWorld run used an early experimental filter discarding seven near-duplicate tasks, replaced by seven sessions from the scaling experiment — a step the paper notes was not part of the general method.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2610.08048

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

26 of 41 cited sources checked · 12 supported · 3 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation
    § 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 2

    Building procedural memory from past experience demands a curated set of training tasks drawn from the target task distribution, often paired with a verifier that scores each attempt.

    “This demands a curated set of training tasks drawn from the target task distribution, often paired with a verifier that scores each attempt.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Zhao et al., 2024 source

      Section 4.1 describes collecting trajectories from training tasks and using success or failure to decide whether to retry; the algorithm also records environment rewards. But §4.4 explicitly considers learning from source tasks in a different distribution, so the paper does not establish that tasks must be drawn from the target distribution. Nor does it specify a separate verifier paired with the tasks to score each attempt. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Allard et al., 2026 source

      The Introduction (p. 1) explicitly says ERL extracts heuristics from single attempts “without curated training sets,” contrary to the claim that building this kind of memory demands them. The paper does use training tasks matching the test distribution and automatic verification in its Gaia2 evaluation (Appendix B, p. 7), but presents those as an experimental setup, not a requirement. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Zhang et al., 2026

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Premisecitation
    § 2 RELATED WORK · p. 2

    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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Wang et al., 2024 source

      The citation is attached to the claim that Voyager proposes tasks through an automatic curriculum, but this source describes Agent Workflow Memory, not Voyager. Section 2.3 says its agent receives test instructions and builds memory by inducing workflows from successful attempts; it does not propose the tasks itself. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Zheng et al., 2025 source
    • cites Choi et al., 2026 source
  • Findingown data
    § 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 2

    DAEDALUS 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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Choi et al., 2026 source
  • Premisecitation
    § 2 RELATED WORK · p. 2

    Existing memory methods retain an insight based on the outcome of the trajectory it came from, without confirming that it helps the agent overcome the failure.

    “These methods retain an insight based on the outcome of the trajectory it came from, without confirming that it helps the agent overcome the failure; DAEDALUS instead keeps an insight only once it has turned a failure into repeated success.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Zhao et al., 2024 source
    • cites Fu et al., 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Allard et al., 2026 source

      The Introduction (p. 1) says ERL stores heuristics drawn from trajectory outcomes after single attempts, without repeated execution; this supports the description of ERL’s retention process. It does not establish that existing memory methods generally retain insights this way or that none confirms an insight helps overcome the original failure. The same section says ExpeL retries tasks until success, though it does not say whether ExpeL validates each insight. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationreasoning
    § 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 2

    Such supervision is unavailable for most environments.

    “It is therefore unavailable for most environments, a limitation that is increasingly prevalent as more and more agentic environments are automatically generated without human supervision (Tu et al., 2026; Wang et al., 2026).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Tu et al., 2026

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Wang et al., 2026 source

      The Related Work section (p. 3) says AWM synthesizes environments without predefined task sets or API documentation, avoiding human priors; Table 3 (p. 5) describes minimal reliance on human input. This supports the example of automatically generated environments, but the paper does not establish that the supervision in question is unavailable for most environments. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 32
  • May combine two claims. 46
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 2 RELATED WORK · p. 2

    Skill-library methods require oracle verifiers or weight updates.

    “Others build skill libraries, from Voyager's executable code skills (Wang et al., 2024) to natural-language skills refined through reward-based optimization (Mi et al., 2026; Yang et al., 2026; Huang et al., 2026), which requires oracle verifiers or weight updates.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Wang et al., 2024 source

      Section 6 (Related Work; page unavailable) discusses reusable sub-routines used as auxiliary skills and cites the separate Voyager paper. It does not say that skill-library methods require oracle verifiers or weight updates. The References identify Voyager as a different Wang et al. (2024) work, not Agent Workflow Memory. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Mi et al., 2026

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Yang et al., 2026 source

      The Additional information section explicitly says SkillOpt optimizes a single portable skill rather than growing a skill library or changing model weights. It does rely on scored trajectories and a held-out selection split, but lists exact-match metrics, executable checks, and other reliable feedback signals as alternatives to automatic verifiers. Thus the claimed requirement for oracle verifiers or weight updates is contrary to the paper's description. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 2 RELATED WORK · p. 2

    In prior automated task creation works, generated tasks serve to update model weights.

    “In all these works, generated tasks serve to update model weights.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Shi et al., 2026

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Ramrakhya et al., 2026

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Dong et al., 2026 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 2 RELATED WORK · p. 2

    PREPING 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.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Choi et al., 2026 source

      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 measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning
    § 4.1 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK · p. 4

    The other five baseline methods build memory from the benchmark training tasks, and therefore have access to information that DAEDALUS does not.

    “The other five build memory from the benchmark training tasks, and therefore have access to information that DAEDALUS does not.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Zhao et al., 2024 source

      Section 4.2 says ExpeL recalls successful trajectories from an experience pool gathered during training, supporting the claim for ExpeL. The paper does not establish that all five baselines build memory from benchmark training tasks or compare their information access with DAEDALUS. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Fu et al., 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Allard et al., 2026 source

      Appendix B (p. 7) says ExpeL collects experiences from training tasks and AutoGuide generates guidelines from them. The paper does not identify five such baseline methods or discuss DAEDALUS, so it cannot establish that all five have access to information DAEDALUS lacks. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.1 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK · p. 4

    ERL and ReasoningBank reflect on a single attempt per task, with the environment reward and an LLM judge as the respective feedback signals.

    “ERL (Allard et al., 2026) and ReasoningBank (Ouyang et al., 2026) instead reflect on a single attempt per task, with the environment reward and an LLM judge as the respective feedback signals.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Allard et al., 2026 source
    • cites Ouyang et al., 2026

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.1 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK · p. 4

    ExpeL and AutoGuide contrast successful and failed retries of each training task to extract global insights and context-specific guidelines, respectively.

    “ExpeL (Zhao et al., 2024) and AutoGuide (Fu et al., 2024) contrast successful and failed retries of each training task to extract global insights and contextspecific guidelines, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Zhao et al., 2024 source
    • cites Fu et al., 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 5.2 MEMORY USE AT INFERENCE · p. 8

    Useful heuristics are not necessarily semantically similar to the current step; retrieving them is an oblique retrieval problem, in which relevance is latent rather than expressed in the text.

    “A plausible reason is that useful heuristics are not necessarily semantically similar to the current step: retrieving them is an oblique retrieval problem, in which relevance is latent rather than expressed in the text (Tchuindjo et al., 2026).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tchuindjo et al., 2026 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § E EXPERIMENTAL SETUP DETAILS · p. 20

    On AppWorld, each generation session runs in the initial world of one training task, whose instruction and verifier are not used, and generation excludes Amazon and Gmail, which appear only in the challenge split.

    “On AppWorld, each generation session runs in the initial world of one training task, whose instruction and verifier are not used, and generation excludes Amazon and Gmail, which appear only in the challenge split (Trivedi et al., 2024).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Trivedi et al., 2024 source

      Section 3.1 says each task has an initial environment state, instruction, and evaluation data. Section 3.4 says Amazon and Gmail are designated unseen apps whose APIs are required by tasks in the challenge split, Test-C. The paper does not say that each generation session starts in one training task’s world or that its instruction and verifier are unused; nor does it establish the citing paper’s generation procedure. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § G.2 BENCHMARK-SPECIFIC PROMPTS · p. 29

    The original AppWorld solver prompt (Trivedi et al., 2024) contains extensive human-written heuristics for the environment.

    “The original AppWorld solver prompt (Trivedi et al., 2024) contains extensive human-written heuristics for the environment”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Trivedi et al., 2024 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.2 MAIN RESULTS · p. 5

    Without any training task, DAEDALUS is within error margins of the best method using them in four of the six MSR and pass^5 columns, falling behind only ACE on AppWorld pass^5 and ExpeL on AutomationBench MSR.

    “Without any training task, DAEDALUS is within error margins of the best method using them in four of the six MSR and pass^5 columns, falling behind only ACE on AppWorld pass^5 and ExpeL on AutomationBench MSR.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: AutomationBench's Operations split has higher public scores than other splits.
    • Rests on an assumption: Hyperparameters set from preliminary generation sessions on AppWorld transfer to τ2-bench and AutomationBench without tuning.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 3 BUILDING MEMORY FROM SELF-GENERATED TASKS · p. 3

    In the main experiments, the Solver shares the base agent's model, and the resulting bank also transfers to base agents from other model families.

    “In our main experiments, the Solver shares the base agent's model, and we show in Section 4 that the resulting bank also transfers to base agents from other model families.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.2 MAIN RESULTS · p. 5

    DAEDALUS raises the MSR of the base agent by 15.9, 10.0 and 4.3 points over the no-memory baseline on AppWorld, τ2-bench and AutomationBench.

    “DAEDALUS raises the MSR of the base agent by 15.9, 10.0 and 4.3 points over the no-memory baseline on AppWorld, τ 2 -bench and AutomationBench (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: AutomationBench's Operations split has higher public scores than other splits.
    • Rests on an assumption: Hyperparameters set from preliminary generation sessions on AppWorld transfer to τ2-bench and AutomationBench without tuning.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.2 MAIN RESULTS · p. 5

    DAEDALUS consistently outperforms PREPING on both MSR and pass^5 metrics.

    “DAEDALUS also consistently outperforms PREPING on both metrics.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: AutomationBench's Operations split has higher public scores than other splits.
    • Rests on an assumption: Hyperparameters set from preliminary generation sessions on AppWorld transfer to τ2-bench and AutomationBench without tuning.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.2 MAIN RESULTS · p. 5

    Self-generated tasks recover most of the benefit of curated ones, since DAEDALUS underperforms its curated variant by only 0.6, 2.5 and 4.0 MSR points, and the pass^5 gap is within error margins on all three.

    “Selfgenerated tasks recover most of the benefit of curated ones, since DAEDALUS underperforms its curated variant by only 0.6, 2.5 and 4.0 MSR points, and the pass^5 gap is within error margins on all three.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: AutomationBench's Operations split has higher public scores than other splits.
    • Rests on an assumption: Hyperparameters set from preliminary generation sessions on AppWorld transfer to τ2-bench and AutomationBench without tuning.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.2 MAIN RESULTS · p. 5

    Given the same training tasks, DAEDALUS-curated ranks first within error margins on every benchmark and metric, at one of the lowest inference costs.

    “Given the same training tasks, DAEDALUS-curated ranks first within error margins on every benchmark and metric, at one of the lowest inference costs”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: AutomationBench's Operations split has higher public scores than other splits.
    • Rests on an assumption: Hyperparameters set from preliminary generation sessions on AppWorld transfer to τ2-bench and AutomationBench without tuning.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § 4.2 MAIN RESULTS · p. 6

    DAEDALUS achieves a mean success rate of 36.0 ± 1.5 on AutomationBench (Operations).

    “DAEDALUS | 60.2 ± 0 . 9 | 32.1 ± 3 . 6 | 3.2 | 67.5 ± 2 . 5 | 37.5 ± 7 . 8 | 0.5 | 36.0 ± 1 . 5 | 21.4 ± 4 . 9 | 1.2”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 5.2 MEMORY USE AT INFERENCE · p. 8

    Retrieving more heuristics with BM25 improves success, but stays below whole-bank injection (58.2% at k=30).

    “retrieving more heuristics with BM25 improves success, but stays below whole-bank injection (58.2% at k =30 ; Figure 7)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § 4.2 MAIN RESULTS · p. 6

    DAEDALUS achieves a mean success rate of 60.2 ± 0.9 on AppWorld (normal).

    “DAEDALUS | 60.2 ± 0 . 9 | 32.1 ± 3 . 6 | 3.2 | 67.5 ± 2 . 5 | 37.5 ± 7 . 8 | 0.5 | 36.0 ± 1 . 5 | 21.4 ± 4 . 9 | 1.2”
    • Also stated in: § 5 ANALYSIS AND ABLATIONS · p. 7 · plain
      “+ Environment survey (DAEDALUS) ( F) | 60.2 ± 0 . 9 | 32.1 ± 3 . 6 | 3.2 | 97.8 | 118 | 109.7”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § 4.2 MAIN RESULTS · p. 6

    DAEDALUS achieves a mean success rate of 67.5 ± 2.5 on τ2-bench (retail).

    “DAEDALUS | 60.2 ± 0 . 9 | 32.1 ± 3 . 6 | 3.2 | 67.5 ± 2 . 5 | 37.5 ± 7 . 8 | 0.5 | 36.0 ± 1 . 5 | 21.4 ± 4 . 9 | 1.2”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 5.1 MEMORY GENERATION · p. 7

    Guidelines in variant (E) change MSR by -1.1 points, within standard error.

    “MSR changes by -1 . 1 points, within standard error”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § 5.3 SELF-GENERATED TASKS AS EVALUATION PROXIES · p. 9

    Absolute success rates differ between generated tasks and AppWorld test split, as the generated tasks were calibrated to GPT-5.4-mini.

    “Absolute success rates differ, as the generated tasks were calibrated to GPT-5.4-mini”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.2 MAIN RESULTS · p. 5

    DAEDALUS is robust across benchmarks as it never falls below the no-memory baseline, unlike ACE, ReasoningBank and AutoGuide.

    “It is also robust across benchmarks as it never falls below the no-memory baseline, unlike ACE, ReasoningBank and AutoGuide.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: AutomationBench's Operations split has higher public scores than other splits.
    • Rests on an assumption: Hyperparameters set from preliminary generation sessions on AppWorld transfer to τ2-bench and AutomationBench without tuning.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 5.2 MEMORY USE AT INFERENCE · p. 8

    Injected at task start, the consolidated bank is both the best-performing and the cheapest option.

    “Injected at task start, the consolidated bank is both the best-performing and the cheapest option”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § E EXPERIMENTAL SETUP DETAILS · p. 19

    DAEDALUS spends more solver rollouts than any baseline, about 6 times more than ExpeL and 14 times more than single-attempt methods.

    “DAEDALUS spends more solver rollouts than any baseline, about 6 times more than ExpeL and 14 times more than single-attempt methods (Table 14).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § C MEMORY GENERATION SETTINGS · p. 17

    The resulting 95% confidence intervals are [2.1, 18.5] points for MSR and [1.2, 28.4] points for pass^3, and both exclude zero.

    “The resulting 95% confidence intervals are [2.1, 18.5] points for MSR and [1.2, 28.4] points for pass^3, and both exclude zero.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The solver is an LLM agent, inherently stochastic, and an ineffective heuristic could pass the acceptance rule by chance.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § C MEMORY GENERATION SETTINGS · p. 17

    Disabling reasoning lowers the gain further to 9.5 points, while pass^5 does not change.

    “Disabling reasoning lowers it further to 9.5 points, while pass^5 does not change.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: On official AppWorld tasks, the benchmark provides the tasks and their verdicts, so the extractor is the only auxiliary agent that affects the memory.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § 6 CONCLUSION · p. 9

    Across three benchmarks, the resulting memory is the strongest among methods without training tasks and competitive with methods that require them, at marginal or no additional inference cost.

    “Across three benchmarks, the resulting memory is the strongest among methods without training tasks and competitive with methods that require them, at marginal or no additional inference cost.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Memory-based agents usually learn from curated tasks and an existing verifier, which a new environment does not provide.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § C MEMORY GENERATION SETTINGS · p. 16

    Most heuristics are accepted after one or two failures, but a tail of sessions need up to seven.

    “Most heuristics are accepted after one or two failures, but a tail of sessions need up to seven”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § D MEMORY RETRIEVAL AND INJECTION · p. 17

    Increasing k with BM25 improves both MSR and pass^5, which plateau between k=10 and k=20 and rise again at k=30.

    “Increasing k with BM25 improves both MSR and pass^5, which plateau between k =10 and k =20 and rise again at k =30 (Figure 7).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given
    § B LIMITATIONS · p. 15

    Our preliminary attempts at iterative schemes did not yield consistent gains.

    “our preliminary attempts at such iterative schemes did not yield consistent gains”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § D MEMORY RETRIEVAL AND INJECTION · p. 18

    Injecting the whole bank transiently at every turn (ALL @ TURN) underperforms injecting it once in the system prompt (ALL @ START) on both metrics and at higher cost.

    “injecting it transiently at every turn (ALL @ TURN) underperforms injecting it once in the system prompt (ALL @ START) on both metrics and at higher cost”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § D MEMORY RETRIEVAL AND INJECTION · p. 18

    R2R falls to the no-memory level on MSR (44.2 vs. 44.3) and below it on pass^5 (11.9 vs. 14.9).

    “falls to the no-memory level on MSR (44.2 vs. 44.3) and below it on pass^5 (11.9 vs. 14.9).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § D MEMORY RETRIEVAL AND INJECTION · p. 18

    NO REPLACEMENT exposes the solver to the most distinct heuristics (46.0 on average) and achieves the best retrieved-subset MSR (56.0), yet remains below whole-bank injection at task start (60.2).

    “NO REPLACEMENT exposes the solver to the most distinct heuristics (46.0 on average) and achieves the best retrieved-subset MSR (56.0), yet remains below whole-bank injection at task start (60.2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § C MEMORY GENERATION SETTINGS · p. 16

    Most sessions need at most two refinements and only a handful need four or five.

    “most sessions need at most two refinements and only a handful need four or five”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § E EXPERIMENTAL SETUP DETAILS · p. 19

    The seven discarded tasks were replaced with seven successful sessions from the scaling experiment, yielding 88 accepted heuristics over the 90 retained sessions (97.8%).

    “We replaced them with seven successful sessions from the scaling experiment (Figure 6), yielding 88 accepted heuristics over the 90 retained sessions (97.8%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § D MEMORY RETRIEVAL AND INJECTION · p. 18

    TRANSIENT is the weakest policy (48.5 MSR), and its pass^5 of 13.1 falls below the no-memory baseline.

    “TRANSIENT is the weakest policy (48.5 MSR), and its pass^5 of 13.1 falls below the no-memory baseline.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § C MEMORY GENERATION SETTINGS · p. 17

    With its heuristic in context, the solver's MSR rises from 66.7% to 77.0% and its pass^3 from 40.7% to 55.6%.

    “With its heuristic in context, the solver's MSR rises from 66.7% to 77.0% and its pass^3 from 40.7% to 55.6%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The solver is an LLM agent, inherently stochastic, and an ineffective heuristic could pass the acceptance rule by chance.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § E EXPERIMENTAL SETUP DETAILS · p. 19

    Of the 1,225 rollouts, 520 are spent on the explorer's first version of each task, which is close to the 592 rollouts of DAEDALUS-curated on the training tasks, and the remaining 705 are spent on refined versions of tasks that were too easy or too hard.

    “Of the 1,225 rollouts, 520 are spent on the explorer's first version of each task, which is close to the 592 rollouts of DAEDALUS-curated on the training tasks, and the remaining 705 are spent on refined versions of tasks that were too easy or too hard.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 2

    Experience can be gathered from task queries as they arrive at test time.

    “Instead, experience can be gathered from task queries as they arrive at test time (Wang et al., 2025; Ouyang et al., 2026), but the agent then handles its first tasks without memory and improves only after failing on them.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Wang et al., 2025

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Ouyang et al., 2026

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 2

    DAEDALUS bootstraps agent memory in new environments without human supervision, so that agents no longer discover them through trial and error at test time.

    “DAEDALUS thus bootstraps agent memory in new environments without human supervision, so that agents no longer discover them through trial and error at test time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 2

    When experience is gathered from test-time task queries, the agent handles its first tasks without memory and improves only after failing on them.

    “but the agent then handles its first tasks without memory and improves only after failing on them.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 1 INTRODUCTION · p. 2

    In both curated-training-task and test-time-query settings, memory is built only from exposure to the tasks it is meant to support.

    “In both cases, memory is built only from exposure to the tasks it is meant to support.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 4.1 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK · p. 4

    The DAEDALUS-curated variant runs the Solver loop on the same training tasks to isolate the memory mechanism from task generation.

    “Finally, to isolate the memory mechanism from task generation, we evaluate a DAEDALUS-curated variant that runs our Solver loop on the same training tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 3 BUILDING MEMORY FROM SELF-GENERATED TASKS · p. 3

    DAEDALUS tests the heuristic itself, rather than validating memories by the outcome of the trajectory they were drawn from or by task feasibility.

    “DAEDALUS thus tests the heuristic itself”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 3 BUILDING MEMORY FROM SELF-GENERATED TASKS · p. 4

    The Consolidator merges accepted heuristics in a single LLM call, removing redundant or overlapping advice while preserving actionable guidance.

    “After the last session, a Consolidator merges the accepted heuristics in a single LLM call, removing redundant or overlapping advice while preserving actionable guidance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § 4.1 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK · p. 5

    Memory generation never accesses test instances and only uses environment states available to the baselines using training tasks.

    “Memory generation never accesses test instances and only uses environment states available to the baselines using training tasks (Appendix E).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 3 BUILDING MEMORY FROM SELF-GENERATED TASKS · p. 4

    The Surveyor's target distribution of tasks across areas diversifies the coverage of the Explorer's tasks.

    “Before the first session, a Surveyor explores the environment once and defines a target distribution of tasks across its areas, which the Explorer then follows to diversify the coverage of its tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 3 BUILDING MEMORY FROM SELF-GENERATED TASKS · p. 4

    The resulting bank is frozen and injected once into the base agent's context at the start of each test task.

    “The resulting bank is frozen and injected once into the base agent's context at the start of each test task”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 3 BUILDING MEMORY FROM SELF-GENERATED TASKS · p. 4

    Turning refinement history into guidelines helps the Explorer calibrate difficulty in later sessions.

    “after each session that required refinement, the refinement history is turned into guidelines that help the Explorer calibrate difficulty in later sessions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 4.1 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK · p. 4

    ACE maintains an evolving playbook that it refines through incremental updates.

    “ACE (Zhang et al., 2026) maintains an evolving playbook that it refines through incremental updates.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zhang et al., 2026

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § 4.1 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK · p. 4

    The dual-control setting of telecom would require simulating user-side tools during exploration.

    “the dual-control setting of telecom would require simulating user-side tools during exploration.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 5.1 MEMORY GENERATION · p. 8

    The early gains matter more in practice, since they make a useful memory affordable after only a few sessions.

    “The early gains matter more in practice, since they make a useful memory affordable after only a few sessions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 5.1 MEMORY GENERATION · p. 8

    With a larger bank, consolidation misstates the scope of some heuristics, and such minor changes can have a large impact on specific parts of the test distribution.

    “with a larger bank, consolidation misstates the scope of some heuristics, and such minor changes can have a large impact on specific parts of the test distribution”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § E EXPERIMENTAL SETUP DETAILS · p. 18

    The solver and the base agent run on the smaller model, and every auxiliary agent runs on the larger model.

    “The solver and the base agent run on the smaller model, and every auxiliary agent runs on the larger model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationown data
    § C MEMORY GENERATION SETTINGS · p. 16

    The choice of Nr=5 is justified by the distribution of refinements.

    “which justifies our choice of N r = 5 .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data
    § E EXPERIMENTAL SETUP DETAILS · p. 18

    Every method uses the same pair of LLMs on a given benchmark.

    “Every method uses the same pair of LLMs on a given benchmark (Table 11).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § B LIMITATIONS · p. 15

    Dual-control settings such as τ2-bench telecom are not yet supported.

    “Dual-control settings such as τ 2 -bench telecom, where a simulated user must also act on the environment, are not yet supported.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § E EXPERIMENTAL SETUP DETAILS · p. 18

    Auxiliary agents are raised to the larger model so that no method is limited by a weaker auxiliary model.

    “We raise them to the larger model so that no method is limited by a weaker auxiliary model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § E EXPERIMENTAL SETUP DETAILS · p. 19

    The filter was not part of the general method and was not used on other benchmarks.

    “This filter was not part of the general method and was not used on other benchmarks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation
    § E EXPERIMENTAL SETUP DETAILS · p. 18

    On τ2-bench, the user simulator is gpt-4.1-2025-04-14 for all methods, as per the original benchmark implementation.

    “On τ 2 -bench, the user simulator is gpt-4.1-2025-04-14 for all methods, as per the original benchmark implementation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § E EXPERIMENTAL SETUP DETAILS · p. 19

    The environment and benchmark tasks were not modified, which keeps scores comparable to the original implementation.

    “We do not modify the environment or the benchmark tasks, which keeps our scores comparable to the original implementation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § C MEMORY GENERATION SETTINGS · p. 17

    The paired bootstrap resamples the 81 tasks with replacement 10,000 times while keeping each task's two conditions together, so differences in difficulty between tasks do not inflate the variance.

    “We assess these gains with a paired bootstrap, which resamples the 81 tasks with replacement 10,000 times while keeping each task's two conditions together, so that differences in difficulty between tasks do not inflate the variance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The solver is an LLM agent, inherently stochastic, and an ineffective heuristic could pass the acceptance rule by chance.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § B LIMITATIONS · p. 16

    The single consolidation call narrows the 90-session rule to 'enumerate every matching container', so the Solver reads a single page of playlists or friends.

    “The single call narrows the 90-session rule to 'enumerate every matching container' , so the Solver reads a single page of playlists or friends”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § C MEMORY GENERATION SETTINGS · p. 16

    Low failure limits lose heuristics on the hardest tasks, which are the ones where memory helps most.

    “Low limits lose heuristics on the hardest tasks, which are the ones where memory helps most.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § E EXPERIMENTAL SETUP DETAILS · p. 19

    On the 90-session AppWorld run, an early experimental filter discarded seven accepted tasks whose expected tool paths near-duplicated banked tasks.

    “On the 90session AppWorld run, an early experimental filter discarded seven accepted tasks whose expected tool paths near-duplicated banked tasks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § E EXPERIMENTAL SETUP DETAILS · p. 19

    The DAEDALUS Explorer rejects any generated task whose reference solution exchanges more than one item in a single call, so that generated tasks are not graded by argument order.

    “Instead, the DAEDALUS Explorer rejects any generated task whose reference solution exchanges more than one item in a single call, so that generated tasks are not graded by argument order.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § D MEMORY RETRIEVAL AND INJECTION · p. 18

    Writing a dedicated query does not make retrieval more precise and mostly adds noise.

    “Writing a dedicated query does not make retrieval more precise and mostly adds noise”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § E EXPERIMENTAL SETUP DETAILS · p. 20

    On AutomationBench, generation uses only the worlds of the 30 training tasks.

    “On AutomationBench, generation uses only the worlds of the 30 training tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § E EXPERIMENTAL SETUP DETAILS · p. 19

    These rollouts use the small Solver model, so they account for a minor share of the generation cost reported in Table 3, which is dominated by the explorer and the judge.

    “These rollouts use the small Solver model, so they account for a minor share of the generation cost reported in Table 3, which is dominated by the explorer and the judge.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § E EXPERIMENTAL SETUP DETAILS · p. 20

    The Explorer therefore sees the same environment states as methods using training tasks.

    “The Explorer therefore sees the same environment states as methods using training tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § E EXPERIMENTAL SETUP DETAILS · p. 19

    The Solver loop itself costs about as much on generated tasks as on curated ones, and task calibration roughly doubles it.

    “The Solver loop itself therefore costs about as much on generated tasks as on curated ones, and task calibration roughly doubles it.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § G.2 BENCHMARK-SPECIFIC PROMPTS · p. 29

    The authors replaced the original AppWorld solver prompt with a simplified version (Prompt 10, inserted into the shared solver template of Prompt 9) to evaluate all methods with less hand-engineered guidance.

    “so we replace it with a simplified version (Prompt 10, inserted into the shared solver template of Prompt 9) to evaluate all methods with less hand-engineered guidance”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Using less hand-engineered guidance in the solver prompt yields a more valid evaluation of methods.
72 of 72

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    LLM agents often lack the operational knowledge to act reliably in new environments.

    “LLMagents often lack the operational knowledge to act reliably in new environments, as they must discover specific tool behaviors or environment conventions on their own.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The solver's repeated success on a task it initially failed indicates that the heuristic is relevant and should be retained.

    “The relevance of a heuristic is validated only when it enables the solver to repeatedly succeed on a task it initially failed.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    AutomationBench's Operations split has higher public scores than other splits.

    “Due to compute costs, we restrict AutomationBench to its Operations split, whose higher public scores ensure a non-trivial baseline.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    AutomationBench is a more challenging benchmark than AppWorld and τ2-bench.

    “By default, we use GPT-5.4 / GPT-5.4-mini on AppWorld and τ 2 -bench, and GPT-5.6 Terra / GPT-5.6 Luna on AutomationBench, which is a more challenging benchmark.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Perfect prompt caching is achievable for inference cost estimation.

    “We also report the inference cost for one evaluation run at OpenAI standard-tier API prices, assuming perfect prompt caching.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Hyperparameters set from preliminary generation sessions on AppWorld transfer to τ2-bench and AutomationBench without tuning.

    “We set these values from a few preliminary generation sessions on AppWorld and reuse them on τ 2 -bench and AutomationBench without tuning.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Environments without training tasks usually lack a test set as well.

    “Environments without training tasks usually lack a test set as well”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Memory-based agents usually learn from curated tasks and an existing verifier, which a new environment does not provide.

    “Memory-based agents usually learn from curated tasks and an existing verifier, which a new environment does not provide.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A mistaken judgment can misdirect task refinement or validate an unreliable heuristic.

    “A mistaken judgment can misdirect task refinement or validate an unreliable heuristic.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Heuristics accepted in separate sessions often overlap.

    “Heuristics accepted in separate sessions often overlap”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    DAEDALUS assumes that the explorer can set up and complete tasks alone in a resettable environment.

    “DAEDALUS assumes that the explorer can set up and complete tasks alone in a resettable environment.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    On official AppWorld tasks, the benchmark provides the tasks and their verdicts, so the extractor is the only auxiliary agent that affects the memory.

    “On the official AppWorld tasks, the benchmark provides the tasks and their verdicts, so the extractor is the only auxiliary agent that affects the memory.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The solver is an LLM agent, inherently stochastic, and an ineffective heuristic could pass the acceptance rule by chance.

    “Since the solver is an LLM agent, it is inherently stochastic and an ineffective heuristic could pass the acceptance rule by chance.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    On τ2-bench, all tasks share a single database, which methods using training tasks also access.

    “On τ 2 -bench, all tasks share a single database, which methods using training tasks also access.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Using less hand-engineered guidance in the solver prompt yields a more valid evaluation of methods.

    “to evaluate all methods with less hand-engineered guidance”
15 of 15

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Miles McCain, Thomas Millar, Saffron Huang, Jake Eaton, Kunal Handa, Michael Stern, Alex Tamkin, Matt Kearney, Esin Durmus, Judy Shen, Jerry Hong, Brian Calvert, Jun Shern Chan, Francesco Mosconi, David Saunders, Tyler Neylon, Gabriel Nicholas, Sarah Pollack, Jack Clark, and Deep Ganguli. Measuring AI agent autonomy in practice, 2026. URL https://anthropic. com/research/measuring-agent-autonomy .

Authors
Edy, A., Conti, M., Xing, V., Allard, M.-A., Benhamdane, N., & Viaud, G.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2610.08048
arXiv
2610.08048
OpenAlex
W7221062216
Semantic Scholar
57e68ee36a33d220ba9f216d65546832e90509f6
Cited by
0
References
38
Type
posted content
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Agence Nationale de la Recherche
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 › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
LLM agents, agent memory, bootstrapping, task generation, procedural memory, benchmark tasks, model ranking

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-16.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-16.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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