# Local Edits, Global Ripples: Replay-Informed Policy Adaptation for Workflow Synthesis

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.12127 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.12127/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 40 of its 42 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 10 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 40)

- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.16291/) (2023)
- [Conservative Q-Learning for Offline Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.04779/) (2020)
- [SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.15793/) (2024)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [Tulu 3: Pushing Frontiers in Open Language Model Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15124/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.01910/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debug](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.05128/) (2023)
- [ExpeL: LLM Agents Are Experiential Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.10144/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models as Optimizers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.03409/) (2023)
- [DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03714/) (2023)
- [Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formatting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11324/) (2023)
- [CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11738/) (2023)
- [Automatic Prompt Optimization with "Gradient Descent" and Beam Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.03495/) (2023)
- [Executable Code Actions Elicit Better LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01030/) (2024)
- [Promptbreeder: Self-Referential Self-Improvement Via Prompt Evolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.16797/) (2023)
- [GEPA: Reflective Prompt Evolution Can Outperform Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.19457/) (2025)
- [Generative Verifiers: Reward Modeling as Next-Token Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.15240/) (2024)
- [AFlow: Automating Agentic Workflow Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.10762/) (2024)
- [Automated Design of Agentic Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.08435/) (2024)
- [Agent Workflow Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.07429/) (2024)
- [rStar-Math: Small LLMs Can Master Math Reasoning with Self-Evolved Deep Thinking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.04519/) (2025)
- [Optimizing Instructions and Demonstrations for Multi-Stage Language Model Programs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11695/) (2024)
- [TextGrad: Automatic "Differentiation" via Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07496/) (2024)
- [Evaluating the Ripple Effects of Knowledge Editing in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.12976/) (2023)
- [PromptAgent: Strategic Planning with Language Models Enables Expert-level Prompt Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.16427/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Prompt-policy editing offers a practical way to improve agents that synthesize executable workflows without updating the underlying model. However, persistent prompt editing has two coupled properties. First, edit locality does not imply effect locality: an edit confined to one policy segment can ripple through downstream execution, altering behavior beyond the edited segment. Second, edit effects are composition-sensitive: edits that work in isolation can interfere after composition, causing one or both to lose their benefit or become harmful. Persistent adaptation must therefore support two distinct decisions: identifying where the policy should change from execution feedback, and determining whether the resulting edit remains safe to persist after composition. To address these challenges, we introduce RIPPLE (Replay-Informed Persistent Policy Localization and Editing), which separates where an edit is made from whether it remains safe after composition. It diagnoses failed trajectories, maps each actionable failure to a predefined policy segment, and restricts the correction to that part of the policy. RIPPLE then evaluates candidates against the same iteration-start policy to compare their isolated gains, before replaying promising edits after previously accepted updates to expose downstream effects and interactions. Only edits that remain safe under composition are retained. We evaluate RIPPLE on Flow-HO, a synthetic held-out benchmark for executable workflow synthesis. RIPPLE improves validation success by up to 23.1% and yields positive gains on two additional frozen language-model backbones, while maintaining edit efficiency and low execution cost. Targeted interaction analysis further demonstrates both properties: a segment-local tool-use edit changes downstream resource resolution and validation, while an edit beneficial in isolation becomes harmful after composition.