mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

AutoRefine: Compiling Trajectories into Validated Typed Agent Artifacts

arXiv 2601.22758 ↗First posted 30 Jan 2026cs.AIcited by 5

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language model agents repeatedly encounter related tasks, yet systems that learn from trajectories commit every lesson to one predefined artifact form. A local constraint, a reusable procedure, and a delegated objective require different amounts of runtime ownership, so one form either under-specifies the correction or wraps it in execution machinery it does not need. We present AutoRefine, which treats trajectory learning as typed artifact compilation. It contrasts failed against successful trajectories to derive a type-neutral, evidence-linked intervention specification, then compiles that specification into the first Rule, Skill, or bounded Subagent that closes it under a runtime-relative ownership order: the selected schema must own every specified observation, state variable, dependent decision, and completion condition. Validation is stated in the same terms: a type-specific contract gate tests whether the generated object realizes its declared boundary, and a replay gate admits it only when it improves the correction cases linked to its source failures without regression on preservation cases. With GPT-5.6-terra as the shared backbone, AutoRefine records the highest success on ALFWorld, ScienceWorld, TravelPlanner, and SpreadsheetBench, and ties the best result on SkillCraft; on TravelPlanner it reaches 80.56% success against 50.0% for the strongest baseline. Removing boundary closure or replay validation costs 15.00 and 16.11 percentage points, the two largest losses among our construction and admission policies. In a longitudinal TravelPlanner stream, the repository holds 89--91% held-out success after 60 learning tasks with no net loss on previously solved tasks, and frozen repositories improve all 25 evaluated source--target pairs, more within a domain (14.20 points on average) than across domains (6.99).

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 9 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Jan 2026.

Builds on

9 of 24 references.

Closest ancestors · 3

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025EvolveR: Self-Evolving LLM Agents through an Experience-Driven Lifecycle17 Oct
  2. 2025ATLAS: Constraints-Aware Multi-Agent Collaboration for Real-World Travel Planning29 Sep
  3. 2024TravelPlanner: A Benchmark for Real-World Planning with Language Agents2 Feb

Other references · 6

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
  2. 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,276
  3. 2020ALFWorld: Aligning Text and Embodied Environments for Interactive Learningcited by 1,205
  4. 2025Agentic Context Engineering: Evolving Contexts for Self-Improving Language Modelscited by 398
  5. 2022ScienceWorld: Is your Agent Smarter than a 5th Grader?cited by 327
  6. 2024SpreadsheetBench: Towards Challenging Real World Spreadsheet Manipulationcited by 111

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.

5 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Interlock: From Local Correctness to Task Completion in Long-Horizon Agents
  2. 2026OTAP: Structure-Aware Optimal Transport for Evaluating Planning and Execution in Agent Trajectories
  3. 2026Trace2Skill: Distill Trajectory-Local Lessons into Transferable Agent Skills
  4. 2026What Do Agents Learn from Trajectory-SFT: Semantics or Interfaces?
  5. 2026Organising Trajectory Evidence for Language-Model Agent Assurance: Fragments, Methods, and the Residual
  6. 2024ReAct Meets ActRe: When Language Agents Enjoy Training Data Autonomy
  7. 2026HaReCAP: Habitual-action Grounding for Recursive Large Language Model Agents
  8. 2026Action-Space Shaping for LLM Agents: Measuring and Mitigating Tool-Schema Bias