mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Regimes: An Auditable, Held-Out-Gated Improvement Loop Demonstrated on LongMemEval with ActiveGraph

arXiv 2606.10241 ↗First posted 8 Jun 2026cs.AIcited by 0

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

  1. 2023ExpeL: LLM Agents Are Experiential Learnerscited by 876
  2. 2023DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelinescited by 832
  3. 2024LongMemEval: Benchmarking Chat Assistants on Long-Term Interactive Memorycited by 707
  4. 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 604
  5. 2025Where LLM Agents Fail and How They can Learn From Failurescited by 133
  6. 2025A Self-Improving Coding Agentcited by 79
  7. 2026LongMemEval-V2: Evaluating Long-Term Agent Memory Toward Experienced Colleaguescited by 23
  8. 2026GRASP: Gated Regression-Aware Skill Proposer for Self-Improving LLM Agentscited by 11
  9. 2026The Log is the Agent: Event-Sourced Reactive Graphs for Auditable, Forkable Agentic Systemscited by 4

Built on by

Not cited yet.