# PID-Gated Continual Prompt Adaptation Under Noisy Feedback

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.16129 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.16129/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 21 of its 30 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use

## Builds on (most cited first, 21 of 21)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.00796/) (2016)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.16291/) (2023)
- [Gradient Episodic Memory for Continual Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.08840/) (2017)
- [Continual Lifelong Learning with Neural Networks: A Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.07569/) (2018)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.14465/) (2022)
- [A Comprehensive Survey of Continual Learning: Theory, Method and Application](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.00487/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models as Optimizers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.03409/) (2023)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [Self-Rewarding Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.10020/) (2024)
- [GEPA: Reflective Prompt Evolution Can Outperform Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.19457/) (2025)
- [Responsive Safety in Reinforcement Learning by PID Lagrangian Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.03964/) (2020)
- [SkillWeaver: Web Agents can Self-Improve by Discovering and Honing Skills](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.07079/) (2025)
- [Continual Learning for Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01364/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Deploying LLM agents in non-stationary environments requires continually revising their instructions as the task drifts, yet rewriting after every reported mistake can turn noisy feedback into persistent errors. This raises an often-overlooked scheduling question in prompt adaptation: when should feedback trigger a lasting instruction update, and at what editor-call cost? Taking inspiration from proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control, we introduce a family of lightweight gates that react to the current error, accumulate evidence over time, and roll back deterioration after an edit. We benchmark these gates against both simple baselines and advanced prompt optimizers (TextGrad and GEPA), over a diverse suite of drifting tasks, LLM parameter sizes, feedback-noise levels, and random seeds. PID-gated continual prompt adaptation yields a more favorable Pareto trade-off between task performance (high accuracy, low error) and editor-call budget than the baselines considered, pointing to control-theoretic scheduling as a simple, general tool for robust prompt adaptation under unreliable feedback.