Skip to content
← Back to explorer

From Procedural Skills to Strategy Genes: Towards Experience-Driven Test-Time Evolution

Junjie Wang, Yiming Ren, Haoyang Zhang · Apr 16, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Provisional trust

This page is a lightweight research summary built from the abstract and metadata while deeper extraction catches up.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Provisional

Derived from abstract and metadata only.

Abstract

This beta technical report asks how reusable experience should be represented so that it can function as effective test-time control and as a substrate for iterative evolution. We study this question in 4.590 controlled trials across 45 scientific code-solving scenarios. We find that documentation-oriented Skill packages provide unstable control: their useful signal is sparse, and expanding a compact experience object into a fuller documentation package often fails to help and can degrade the overall average. We further show that representation itself is a first-order factor. A compact Gene representation yields the strongest overall average, remains competitive under substantial structural perturbations, and outperforms matched-budget Skill fragments, while reattaching documentation-oriented material usually weakens rather than improves it. Beyond one-shot control, we show that Gene is also a better carrier for iterative experience accumulation: attached failure history is more effective in Gene than in Skill or freeform text, editable structure matters beyond content alone, and failure information is most useful when distilled into compact warnings rather than naively appended. On CritPt, gene-evolved systems improve over their paired base models from 9.1% to 18.57% and from 17.7% to 27.14%. These results suggest that the core problem in experience reuse is not how to supply more experience, but how to encode experience as a compact, control-oriented, evolution-ready object.

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 page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Trust level

Provisional

Usefulness score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence 0%

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

provisional (inferred)

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"This beta technical report asks how reusable experience should be represented so that it can function as effective test-time control and as a substrate for iterative evolution."

Evaluation Modes

provisional (inferred)

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"This beta technical report asks how reusable experience should be represented so that it can function as effective test-time control and as a substrate for iterative evolution."

Quality Controls

provisional (inferred)

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"This beta technical report asks how reusable experience should be represented so that it can function as effective test-time control and as a substrate for iterative evolution."

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"This beta technical report asks how reusable experience should be represented so that it can function as effective test-time control and as a substrate for iterative evolution."

Reported Metrics

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"This beta technical report asks how reusable experience should be represented so that it can function as effective test-time control and as a substrate for iterative evolution."

Rater Population

provisional (inferred)

Unknown

Rater source not explicitly reported.

"This beta technical report asks how reusable experience should be represented so that it can function as effective test-time control and as a substrate for iterative evolution."

Human Feedback Details

This page is using abstract-level cues only right now. Treat the signals below as provisional.

  • Potential human-data signal: No explicit human-data keywords detected.
  • Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Details

Evaluation fields are inferred from the abstract only.

  • Potential evaluation modes: No explicit eval keywords detected.
  • Potential metric signals: No metric keywords detected.
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Metadata summary

This beta technical report asks how reusable experience should be represented so that it can function as effective test-time control and as a substrate for iterative evolution.

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

Key Takeaways

  • This beta technical report asks how reusable experience should be represented so that it can function as effective test-time control and as a substrate for iterative evolution.
  • We study this question in 4.590 controlled trials across 45 scientific code-solving scenarios.
  • We find that documentation-oriented Skill packages provide unstable control: their useful signal is sparse, and expanding a compact experience object into a fuller documentation package often fails to help and can degrade the overall average.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • 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

Related Papers

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

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.