Regimes: An Auditable, Held-Out-Gated Improvement Loop Demonstrated on LongMemEval with ActiveGraph
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Autonomous improvement loops are hard to trust because the improvement process is usually external scaffolding bolted onto the agent: failures go unlogged, diagnoses cannot be replayed, and promote-or-discard decisions land in a side database rather than the agent's own history. We show that an event-sourced agent runtime removes that friction and turns controlled improvement into a first-class workflow. When the agent's state is a deterministic projection of an append-only event log, failures are recorded, a run replays exactly from its log, candidate patches scope to typed pipeline seams, gates are auditable, and every promotion or discard is itself an event. We demonstrate this with Regimes, a loop on the ActiveGraph runtime that diagnoses failed evaluations, proposes a repair at a pipeline point, and promotes it only after static checks, sandbox execution, in-sample evaluation, and held-out validation. The loop is target-agnostic: the same control flow runs against different tasks through a common interface. On LongMemEval-S the dominant failure is not retrieval but reconciliation: the evidence is already in the assembled context, yet the reader answers incorrectly. Across five seeded held-out splits, Regimes discovers reader-prompt repairs that improve final held-out accuracy by +0.05 to +0.10 in four splits and +0.01 in one over-promotion split; two splits are individually significant (seed 5 unadjusted for its sequential promotion structure), and the pooled count is descriptive only, since the splits share one 500-question pool. The durable contributions are ActiveGraph as an auditable substrate that makes controlled improvement loops tractable, the held-out-gated loop it supports, the failure-regime taxonomy routing each failure to a pipeline location (whose marginal value over an unrouted baseline is the primary open question), and the prompt-as-discovery-probe hypothesis.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Jun 2026.
Builds on
9 of 19 references.
References · 9
- 2023ExpeL: LLM Agents Are Experiential Learnerscited by 876
- 2023DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelinescited by 832
- 2024LongMemEval: Benchmarking Chat Assistants on Long-Term Interactive Memorycited by 707
- 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 604
- 2025Where LLM Agents Fail and How They can Learn From Failurescited by 133
- 2025A Self-Improving Coding Agentcited by 79
- 2026LongMemEval-V2: Evaluating Long-Term Agent Memory Toward Experienced Colleaguescited by 23
- 2026GRASP: Gated Regression-Aware Skill Proposer for Self-Improving LLM Agentscited by 11
- 2026The Log is the Agent: Event-Sourced Reactive Graphs for Auditable, Forkable Agentic Systemscited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.