Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

Let It Flow: Agentic Crafting on Rock and Roll, Building the ROME Model within an Open Agentic Learning Ecosystem

Weixun Wang, XiaoXiao Xu, Wanhe An, Fangwen Dai, Wei Gao, Yancheng He, Ju Huang, Qiang Ji, Hanqi Jin, Xiaoyang Li, Yang Li, Zhongwen Li, Shirong Lin, Jiashun Liu, Zenan Liu, Tao Luo, Dilxat Muhtar, Yuanbin Qu, Jiaqiang Shi, Qinghui Sun, Yingshui Tan, Hao Tang, Runze Wang, Yi Wang, Zhaoguo Wang, Yanan Wu, Shaopan Xiong, Binchen Xu, Xander Xu, Yuchi Xu, Qipeng Zhang, Xixia Zhang, Haizhou Zhao, Jie Zhao, Shuaibing Zhao, Baihui Zheng, Jianhui Zheng, Suhang Zheng, Yanni Zhu, Mengze Cai, Kerui Cao, Xitong Chen, Yue Dai, Lifan Du, Tao Feng, Tao He, Jin Hu, Yijie Hu, Ziyu Jiang, Cheng Li, Xiang Li, Jing Liang, Xin Lin, Chonghuan Liu, ZhenDong Liu, Zhiqiang Lv, Haodong Mi, Yanhu Mo, Junjia Ni, Shixin Pei, Jingyu Shen, XiaoShuai Song, Cecilia Wang, Chaofan Wang, Kangyu Wang, Pei Wang, Tao Wang, Wei Wang, Ke Xiao, Mingyu Xu, Tiange Xu, Nan Ya, Siran Yang, Jianan Ye, Yaxing Zang, Duo Zhang, Junbo Zhang, Boren Zheng, Wanxi Deng, Ling Pan, Lin Qu, Wenbo Su, Jiamang Wang, Wei Wang, Hu Wei, Minggang Wu, Cheng Yu, Bing Zhao, Zhicheng Zheng, Bo Zheng · Dec 31, 2025 · Citations: 0

Long Horizon
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Agentic crafting requires LLMs to operate in real-world environments over multiple turns by taking actions, observing outcomes, and iteratively refining artifacts. Despite its importance, the open-source community lacks a principled, end-to-end ecosystem to streamline agent development. We introduce the Agentic Learning Ecosystem (ALE), a foundational infrastructure that optimizes the production pipeline for agentic model. ALE consists of three components: ROLL, a post-training framework for weight optimization; ROCK, a sandbox environment manager for trajectory generation; and iFlow CLI, an agent framework for efficient context engineering. We release ROME, an open-source agent grounded by ALE and trained on over one million trajectories. Our approach includes data composition protocols for synthesizing complex behaviors and a novel policy optimization algorithm, Interaction-Perceptive Agentic Policy Optimization (IPA), which assigns credit over semantic interaction chunks rather than individual tokens to improve long-horizon training stability. Empirically, we evaluate ROME within a structured setting and introduce Terminal Bench Pro, a benchmark with improved scale and contamination control. ROME demonstrates strong performance across benchmarks like SWE-bench Verified and Terminal Bench, proving the effectiveness of ALE.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 25%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Agentic crafting requires LLMs to operate in real-world environments over multiple turns by taking actions, observing outcomes, and iteratively refining artifacts."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Agentic crafting requires LLMs to operate in real-world environments over multiple turns by taking actions, observing outcomes, and iteratively refining artifacts."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Agentic crafting requires LLMs to operate in real-world environments over multiple turns by taking actions, observing outcomes, and iteratively refining artifacts."

Benchmarks / Datasets

partial

SWE Bench, SWE Bench Verified

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"ROME demonstrates strong performance across benchmarks like SWE-bench Verified and Terminal Bench, proving the effectiveness of ALE."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Agentic crafting requires LLMs to operate in real-world environments over multiple turns by taking actions, observing outcomes, and iteratively refining artifacts."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Unit of annotation: Trajectory (inferred)
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: Long Horizon
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

SWE-benchSWE-bench Verified

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Agentic crafting requires LLMs to operate in real-world environments over multiple turns by taking actions, observing outcomes, and iteratively refining artifacts.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Agentic crafting requires LLMs to operate in real-world environments over multiple turns by taking actions, observing outcomes, and iteratively refining artifacts.
  • Despite its importance, the open-source community lacks a principled, end-to-end ecosystem to streamline agent development.
  • We introduce the Agentic Learning Ecosystem (ALE), a foundational infrastructure that optimizes the production pipeline for agentic model.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against others mentioning SWE-bench.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Simulation environment, Long-horizon tasks) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

SWE-bench

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Agentic crafting requires LLMs to operate in real-world environments over multiple turns by taking actions, observing outcomes, and iteratively refining artifacts.
  • We introduce the Agentic Learning Ecosystem (ALE), a foundational infrastructure that optimizes the production pipeline for agentic model.
  • Empirically, we evaluate ROME within a structured setting and introduce Terminal Bench Pro, a benchmark with improved scale and contamination control.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We introduce the Agentic Learning Ecosystem (ALE), a foundational infrastructure that optimizes the production pipeline for agentic model.
  • Empirically, we evaluate ROME within a structured setting and introduce Terminal Bench Pro, a benchmark with improved scale and contamination control.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: SWE-bench, SWE-bench Verified

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.