Hugging Face Trending Papers

Does Your Generalist Skill Optimizer Really Incentivize Agentic Tasks? Rethinking Skill Optimization via Bipartite Attribution

The paper introduces BiPA, a method to evaluate skill optimizers that rewrite natural‑language procedures for agents performing long‑horizon tasks. BiPA replays the optimizer’s acceptance rule on identical candidates to isolate selection effects and records each episode as a bipartite graph of turns and read text, revealing that learned skills only marginally outperform hand‑written seeds and that many gains vanish on test data. The study finds optimizers add extra input tokens and turns, and proposes four design principles for more reliable skill editing.

arXiv AI
Oct 28

Does Your Generalist Skill Optimizer Really Incentivize Agentic Tasks? Rethinking Skill Optimization via Bipartite Attribution

The paper introduces BiPA, a method for evaluating skill optimizers that rewrite natural‑language procedures for agents. By replaying the optimizer’s acceptance rule on identical candidates and recording episodes as bipartite graphs of turns and read text, BiPA isolates the effect of selection from the cost of added input tokens. Experiments on three optimizers, three benchmarks, and two models show that learned skills perform only marginally better than hand‑written seeds, and that apparent dev‑set gains often disappear on test, revealing that optimizers tend to add redundant rules that increase token usage.

By Jiawei Zhou, Bo Peng, Yuxuan Huang, Ming Zhang, Youbang Sun, Xiang Wang, Chaochao Lu
arXiv AI
Aug 20

SkillGate: Training In-Policy Skill Selection in Long-Horizon Agents

SkillGate is a method that trains agents to select the correct skill from a large slate during an episode by separating credit signals for skill selection and execution. It addresses the problem of selector credit starvation, where traditional outcome-rewarded RL fails to give sufficient credit to the skill-naming tokens, especially in long-horizon tasks. Experiments on five benchmarks show that SkillGate improves a 9B policy’s success rate from 40.8% to 53.2%, reduces exposure to misleading candidates, and requires fewer skill reads.

By Qingyao Li, Wenxiang Jiao, Shuai Shao, Kangning Zhang, Yuan Lu, Yi Guo, Weiwen Liu, Weinan Zhang, Yong Yu
arXiv AI
Oct 5

VERSE: Verified Self-Evolving Optimizer for Agent Harnesses

The paper introduces VERSE, a Verified Self‑Evolving optimizer that enhances LLM agent harnesses by allowing the optimizer to test edits, replay failures, and perturb steps while tracking fixes and regressions. VERSE builds its own tools for failure analysis, verification, training audits, and workflow control, and uses this feedback to revise the harness’s prompts, skills, tools, hooks, and notes without changing model weights. In experiments across five executors and multiple languages, VERSE improves all evaluated harness optimizers, achieving higher accuracy on held‑out and out‑of‑distribution tasks compared to the strongest baselines.

By Zekai Wang, Yingqiang Ge, Zekun Wang, Hai Wang, Yuhui Xu, Joshua Frandsen, Shancong Fu, Ashia C. Wilson, Chandan K. Reddy
arXiv AI
Oct 26

EvoSkill v2: Fully Agentic Skill Evolution from Benchmark Adaptation to a Stateful Evolver

EvoSkill v2 is a three‑agent system that edits the instructions (skills) given to an agent while keeping its model and harness unchanged. The system comprises a benchmark adaptor that turns user‑supplied benchmarks and graders into plugins, a solver that attempts tasks, and a stateful evolver that rewrites skills each epoch based on the solver’s training rollouts. Compared to existing skill optimizers, EvoSkill v2’s evolver uses a single coding agent with a bash tool, accepts every epoch’s skills, and allows multiple attempts per training task, achieving higher held‑out pass rates and lower cost per performance gain on SpreadsheetBench v2 and $ au^3$‑bench banking. whyItMatters":"EvoSkill v2 demonstrates that a single, stateful evolver can more efficiently improve agent skills, enabling even less capable models to achieve significant performance gains in benchmark tasks."

By Dastin Huang, Baran Nama, Salaheddin Alzubi
arXiv AI
Oct 16

SkillNEO: Non-Elitist Evolutionary Optimization of Agent Skills

SkillNEO introduces a non‑elitist evolutionary framework for refining agent skills, allowing lower‑reward versions to receive further edits and preserve useful partial repairs. By separating the selection of a version to use from the selection of versions to improve, the method identifies which steps to keep and which failures to fix, even revisiting earlier versions with new evidence. Experiments on 86 SkillsBench tasks across eight domains show significant reward gains for GPT‑5.4 Mini and substantial improvements when the evolved skills are reused by stronger models such as GPT‑5.5 and GPT‑5.6 Luna.

By Enze Ma, Chunyu Miao, Yankai Chen, Jie Yang, Liancheng Fang, Kening Zheng, Hanrong Zhang, Muyao Xu, Xinle Yu, Chengze Li, Wei-Chieh Huang, Ziwei Ren, Yunhao Du, Zhixiang Shen, Xue Liu, Philip S. Yu, Zhen Wang
arXiv AI
Oct 26

RSI-Opt: Recursive Self-Improvement Optimizer Agents For Model Training

RSI-Opt introduces Recursive Self-Improvement Optimizer Agents that evolve their own training policies by accumulating knowledge from previous runs, including prompts, playbooks, optimizer code, and decision cadences. A meta‑agent rewrites and archives these policies, enabling reusable procedures and code that adapt to new tasks. Across multiple generations and tasks, RSI‑Opt improves optimizer performance, achieving higher z‑scores on evolution suites, better cross‑model transfer, and significant error reductions on PDE benchmarks compared to fixed‑prompt baselines.

By Binghang Lu, Yige Sun, Guang Lin
arXiv AI
Oct 19

EvalResearchBench: Can AI Agents Build Their Own Feedback for Recursive Self-Improvement?

EvalResearchBench (ERB) is a benchmark that tests whether AI agents can autonomously design evaluation tasks for recursive self‑improvement. In ERB, a researcher agent selects or synthesizes tasks, builds graders, and refines them through pilot tests before producing a final evaluator that runs within fixed time and API budgets. Experiments with nine researchers and thirteen candidate models show that the best automated evaluators achieve about 75% concordance with target benchmarks, below the 91% ceiling set by target disagreements, and that human‑designed task samples still outperform many automated approaches.

By Yaolun Zhang, Tianyi Xu, Yujie Zhao, Jishen Zhao, Qingyun Wu, Huazheng Wang