Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

CoReMem: Cost-Internalizing Memory for Successive Coding Tasks with Prospective Valuation

Peiwen Li, Harshit Verma, Sophia Zhou, Haiwen Wang +5 more

Published

Nov 12, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

15% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Nov 12, 2026

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.

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

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

What to verify

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

Main weakness

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

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
0/100
Adjacent candidate

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

Abstract

Coding agents tackle successive tasks on an evolving repository, carrying forward edits and writing memory before the next task is known. Selecting memory for unknown next tasks requires balancing future usefulness against the costs of writing and reading it. The actor must also decide when acting on available memory saves effort as the task unfolds. We introduce Coding-Repository Memory (CoReMem), a cost-internalizing framework that guides memory design and actor adaptation through measured memory value on the next task. Prospective segment valuation compares runs of the next task with and without individual trajectory segments from the same inherited repository state, guiding a compact memory built around anchors: repository locations and executable checks. Actor adaptation estimates on-policy memory value within rollout groups with and without memory, using a reward that prioritizes resolution and penalizes step count in successful runs. Provenance-gated value credit assigns the additional value term to steps identified as using memory-supplied anchors, while every step retains outcome credit. On ChainSWE, CoReMem raises the 27B actor's resolve rate from 21.0% to 25.7%, with 17% fewer steps and 11% fewer total cache-aware tokens, including memory-module calls, relative to the untrained actor model without memory.

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.

"Coding agents tackle successive tasks on an evolving repository, carrying forward edits and writing memory before the next task is known."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Coding agents tackle successive tasks on an evolving repository, carrying forward edits and writing memory before the next task is known."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Coding agents tackle successive tasks on an evolving repository, carrying forward edits and writing memory before the next task is known."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Coding agents tackle successive tasks on an evolving repository, carrying forward edits and writing memory before the next task is known."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Coding agents tackle successive tasks on an evolving repository, carrying forward edits and writing memory before the next task is known."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Not reported
Unit of annotation
Trajectory (inferred)
Expertise required
Coding
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
None
Agentic eval
Long Horizon
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

Coding agents tackle successive tasks on an evolving repository, carrying forward edits and writing memory before the next task is known.

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

Key takeaways

  • Coding agents tackle successive tasks on an evolving repository, carrying forward edits and writing memory before the next task is known.
  • Selecting memory for unknown next tasks requires balancing future usefulness against the costs of writing and reading it.
  • The actor must also decide when acting on available memory saves effort as the task unfolds.

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

Contribution summary

  • Coding agents tackle successive tasks on an evolving repository, carrying forward edits and writing memory before the next task is known.
  • Selecting memory for unknown next tasks requires balancing future usefulness against the costs of writing and reading it.

Why it matters for eval

  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.