analiza aiqbench
This study investigates whether correcting failed agent episodes improves memory transfer to subsequent tasks, revealing significant gains in the ThinkingBox framework but limited benefits in APEX regimes. The analysis demonstrates that the value of repairing experience is distinct from reusing it, as effective memory updates require both previous-version references and fresh-start baselines. Ultimately, workflow gains are driven by reusable obligations rather than superior corrected memories alone.
After the Fix: How Corrected Agent Histories Transfer to Related Tasks
arXiv:2609.34603v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Does repairing an episode make its experience a better memory for the next task? We transfer the same failed source before and after accepted repair to a fixed target, alongside independent execution. Our 3,300 runs cover 100 ThinkingBox pairs and the same 100 APEX pairs with and without source-state inheritance, under eleven conditions. ThinkingBox's Full/Skill/Hybrid correction gains are 44/29/32 percentage points, with corrected performance 25/22/18 points above independence; inference weakens at the task-family level. Yet 12 of Full's 15-point larger correction gap over Skill come from worse uncorrected performance, not better corrected memory. Moreover, 22 of Full's 46 upward transitions restore observed baseline success. Neither APEX regime establishes comparable aggregate correction benefits. Action evidence connects workflow gains with reusable obligations and convention conflicts with source-local choices. Text APEX's accepted execution reaches 52% versus its summary's 40%, without robust global/group-level superiority or an estab- lished advantage over independence. Smaller handoffs reduce input but increase calls. The value of repairing experience is therefore distinct from the value of reusing it: memory updates require both a previous-version reference and a fresh-start reference.
Abstract:Does repairing an episode make its experience a better memory for the next task? We transfer the same failed source before and after accepted repair to a fixed target, alongside independent execution. Our 3,300 runs cover 100 ThinkingBox pairs and the same 100 APEX pairs with and without source-state inheritance, under eleven conditions. ThinkingBox's Full/Skill/Hybrid correction gains are 44/29/32 percentage points, with corrected performance 25/22/18 points above independence; inference weakens at the task-family level. Yet 12 of Full's 15-point larger correction gap over Skill come from worse uncorrected performance, not better corrected memory. Moreover, 22 of Full's 46 upward transitions restore observed baseline success. Neither APEX regime establishes comparable aggregate correction benefits. Action evidence connects workflow gains with reusable obligations and convention conflicts with source-local choices. Text APEX's accepted execution reaches 52% versus its summary's 40%, without robust global/group-level superiority or an estab- lished advantage over independence. Smaller handoffs reduce input but increase calls. The value of repairing experience is therefore distinct from the value of reusing it: memory updates require both a previous-version reference and a fresh-start reference.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Software Engineering (cs.SE)
arXiv:2609.34603 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.34603v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.34603 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 280 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Deconfusing Corrigibility
AI Alignment Forum · 17 oct. 2026

Improving CoT Monitorability of Evaluation Awareness via Verbalization Training
LessWrong · 2 oct. 2026
Why Software Automation Is Hard
LessWrong · 6 iun. 2026

MedPAIR: Measuring Whether Physicians and AI Agree on What Matters in Medical QA
Snorkel AI Blog · 2 oct. 2026