Rehearse implements the loop change as a lightweight skill for autoresearch loops: propose several ideas, compare them before execution, run the most promising, and judge with a focused memory of similar past attempts and outcomes, which raises late selective accuracy to 83.5%.
Abstract
Autoresearch improves machine-learning code by proposing changes, running full training jobs, and keeping changes that improve the metric. The efficiency of this loop depends not only on generating ideas, but also on the agent's ability to decide, before spending a training run, whether a proposed modification is likely to work. We study how the reliability of this pre-execution judgment changes over the course of an autoresearch trajectory. In public AutoSOTA logs (Li et al., 2026; Tsinghua FIB Lab, 2026), the fraction of helpful modifications falls from 70% in the first two iterations to 43% by iteration 6+. On 296 same-baseline modification pairs from 39 paper-derived AutoSOTA tasks, each containing one modification that improved the metric and one that did not, with measured outcomes hidden, an LLM judge given candidate rationales but no prior-attempt history reaches 79.5% accuracy on the pairs where strict consensus returns a verdict. On the full 366-pair benchmark, however, this ability weakens substantially late in the loop. As successful changes accumulate, selective accuracy - accuracy conditioned on a strict-consensus verdict - falls from 82.8% to 56.9%, while the judge remains willing to decide. We call this operational pattern the confidence cliff. Rehearse implements the loop change as a lightweight skill for autoresearch loops: propose several ideas, compare them before execution, run the most promising, and judge with a focused memory of similar past attempts and outcomes. This focused outcome memory raises late selective accuracy to 83.5%. Across 4,000 budgeted training runs over three loops, Rehearse improves the endpoint under the same training-run budget on nanochat, image classification, and time-series forecasting.
A comprehensive re-evaluation of two memory-based methods for self-improving agents is conducted, broadening the scope of evaluation along two axes and hypothesizing that task and environment underspecification contribute to this fragility.
Qinyuan Ye, Yu Li, Yada Pruksachatkun et al.· 1 citation
From the ways agents exploited their harness--reading sibling runs through shared git state, leaving notes to"future runs"in persistent memory--the authors distill five design rules for evaluating autonomous agents.
N. Askarbekuly, Mohamad Al Mdfaa, Ahmed Helaly et al.· 0 citations
This work reproduces SDPO's reported gains in its easy setting, then applies the identical setup to difficult tasks and finds that it does not teach anything, and explains this failure through a single causal chain from the loss to the model it produces.
Sarthak Harne, Chinmay Karkar, Yash Pandya et al.· 1 citation
On-policy self-distillation (OPSD) trains a student on its own responses using token-level supervision from the same model conditioned on privileged reference information. We investigate whether performance gains from OPSD show that the student learned the information in the reference or instead reflect recovery of reasoning behavior already present in the base model. We perform OPSD experiments on science and mathematics datasets using Qwen3 models ranging from 1.7B to 8B. Our analysis framework separates the supervision induced by the reference from the supervision provided by the teacher without the reference and measures how each aligns with changes in the student's predictions. The correct reference does not provide a consistent performance benefit across teacher generation modes, model sizes, and training datasets. Students can improve without the correct reference, and a solution from another problem can outperform the correct solution on several mathematical reasoning benchmarks. The student's predictions align more strongly with the base model's thinking behavior than with the supervision induced by the reference, but controls constructed from other problems reproduce much of both alignments. Moreover, stronger alignment attributable to the correct reference does not reliably coincide with a greater performance benefit from the reference. Performance gains and distributional alignment alone therefore cannot determine how privileged reference information contributes to student learning in OPSD.
AI agents encounter learning opportunities in every episode they run, and discard nearly all of them: the underlying models are frozen at deployment, so an agent that resolves a difficult request today starts from zero when it recurs tomorrow. Yet ordinary operation already produces feedback, in the form of outcome verdicts and after-the-fact corrections. We show that this feedback is a sufficient signal for continual learning when the frozen model is paired with an external memory that distils each episode into retrievable natural-language rules. On the banking domain of $\tau$-bench, against a static-RAG control retrieving over the complete policy corpus, learning from the one-bit outcome verdict lifts single-trial success to 1.6$\times$ the baseline, and learning from corrections to 2.6$\times$, converting 22 of the 84 tasks the baseline never solves. The result spans the deployment spectrum, measured on Mistral Large, an open-weights model that organisations with data sovereignty requirements can self-host, and replicated on a frontier model, Claude Sonnet 5. The accumulated memory also transfers: each model, reading the store built by the other, rises above its own no-memory baseline. The harness, protocol, and data are released.
V. Tablan, Scott Taylor, Kristoffer Bernhem· 0 citations
This work designs a contrastive study that combines controlled quantitative experiments with paired trajectory analysis and consolidates observations into a taxonomy of three high-level categories and twelve skill-use modes, showing that skills work when noisy trajectories become procedural anchors that stabilize execution.
Zhiyuan Jiang, Fan Huang, Hanwen Xing et al.· 0 citations