The research direction is:
how agents can accumulate useful experience across sessions, and where that experience should live: explicit memory, contextual lessons, executable tools, model weights, or runtime rules.
The task is to read the previous research, perspectives and then put concepts from those files into contact through comparable tests.
The source guide links the literature review, and the study map connects mechanisms, evidence, and candidate questions. Its worked examples explain neural writes, reads, and resets. The ancillary-study approach describes how independent studies inform the root's theory and synthesis.
Contributors can use the repository list and clone instructions to retrieve all ancillary studies or select them by name.
Current commission — 17 September: The independent executable-experience-retention study (local brief) is underway with an ancillary agent, as reported by the user. It asks what retained implementation adds to shared acquired experience under competent reconstruction, equal checking and complete cost accounting. The comparison and completed artifact review supply the rationale and public method donors. Its investigator owns workload development and execution; this status update does not inspect unpublished evidence.
Two further studies prepared — 17 September: The methods review selects two independent questions, now commissioned in private ancillary repositories:
- Procedural memory migration: whether paid recipient experience improves the choice to retain, adapt or retire procedural guidance enough to justify its cost. The selection note explains the narrowing beyond existing transfer and migration results.
- Correction lineage: whether acquired dependency information repays its maintenance cost when correcting memory, compared with reconstruction from the same archive. The selection note distinguishes acquired support claims from supplied dependency graphs.
Both are ready for independent ancillary sessions; preparation started no experiments. Their methods and workloads belong to the investigators. Root theory and public discovery continue across the three independent commissions.
The evidence-use assessment accepts its completed bounded phase. A varied-history adapter improves complete outcomes through two corrections: 65/96 uses versus the stronger retained lesson's 61/96, with 108.58 seconds of measured training plus use versus 121.16 seconds of lesson use. Further training regresses to 45/96. This is a narrow positive allocation result: cached lessons, checkpoint selection and full construction/repair costs remain untested; the supplied executable completes 96/96. Original EU1–EU3 predictions and assessments remain identifiable. No follow-up experiment is commissioned.
Current work prioritizes neural memory, live weight updates, and learned memory policies. Ten ancillary projects have published bounded contributions. Update-source selection established reproducible local adapter updates without a task-success advantage in its final full-context comparison. Procedure acquisition and reuse found that its tested adapter transferred less reliably than retained examples and did not demonstrate acquisition-cost repayment at comparable useful accuracy. Neural memory depth (local) found that interactions among initial representations and training streams strongly affect whether a tiny deeper memory learns full or partial recall. Correcting a verified derivative omission and increasing gradient-refresh frequency did not provide a uniform remedy; the differing published depth trends in Titans and Modular TTT remain unexplained.
Procedure transfer (local) first found poor distillation acquisition and partial transfer through imitation. Its subsequent diagnosis (local) establishes a working forward-KL acquisition checkpoint and a controlled repair of failed routing from identical weights. Both selected learners route all 48 new development calls correctly, while identifier production remains unreliable. These diagnostic results explain part of the original failure without establishing a forward-KL transfer advantage. The root assessment records the evidence, checks and limits.
The third-phase root assessment, 15 September, accepts all three completed phases and evaluates the preserved M1–M3 expectations. The broader milestone is met within small controlled tasks: learned policies complete state-changing procedures through recurring learning and revision, while learned memory supports cross-event questions absent from writer training. The latest state/support assessment accepts S2's fourth phase and explains part of the maintenance divergence: the value of revision support depends on the inherited learned state. The preceding follow-up assessment records how these questions arose.
| Latest publication | What we learned |
|---|---|
| Evidence use under revision | One prespecified checkpoint transfers modestly and stays above base through corrections, with a favorable measured cost against an uncached lesson. Longer acquisition regresses; a supplied executable is complete. |
| Maintenance-decision transfer (assessment) | Known history selects the two-support aggregate bound at 524/768 on fresh acquisitions, but every endpoint remains incomplete. Observation controls are constant; validation sees obligation differences despite aggregate ties. A retained-example table completes 192/192. |
| Experience selection — S1 (local) | Damage-aware replay completes more uses overall than a developed fixed mixture, but fewer during recurrence, with more paired losses and substantial prediction cost. Both finish with complete acquisition; stopping at a fixed time can freeze incomplete learning. |
| Procedure retention and revision — S2 (local) | A controlled crossing identifies an interaction between inherited state and current support, with the predicted direction in both fresh acquisitions. One support change helps one state and harms another; neither support choice fully preserves the second fresh acquisition. |
| Memory under goal shift — S4 (local) | Better readers recover substantial utility for later compositions, while exact query-relevant omissions remain in some writers. Broad retention and explicit full records answer every tested query; losing some raw information need not prevent a particular later use. |
| Memory placement under revision — S5 (local) | Learned reranking improves score predictions without repaying its cost: account-aware lexical retrieval matches full reranking at 127/128 complete answers, versus retained/invalidated EARM at 120/121. Prediction quality survives content edits better than changed evidence needs; complete useful advantage is absent. |
S5 now includes an accepted placement comparison alongside the earlier acquisition, use and maintenance measurements. None demonstrates learning-cost repayment against competent explicit alternatives at comparable complete quality. The placement study shares visible evidence across methods; earlier references have different supplied structures and privileges. The later evidence-use result adds a favorable measured comparison against an uncached lesson, qualified above. These results do not establish a universal ranking of weights, records and executable rules.
Current work — 17 September 2026: Ten ancillary projects have published accepted bounded contributions. Of thirteen registered studies, executable-experience-retention is underway by user report, and procedural-memory-migration and correction-lineage are newly prepared. None has findings reviewed here. The completed phases remain closed; the root continues theory, public research and synthesis independently of ancillary execution. The executable study follows the completed public-method comparison. AD1 remains untested locally, AD2 has a bounded maintenance-choice assessment, and AD3 has limited prediction-level support with adverse placement quality/cost evidence. EU1–EU3 add the evidence-use findings above without replacing those predictions or the enduring directive.
S2's state/support phase is complete and accepted. MR1 has direct support in the selected equal-accuracy diagnostic; fresh acquisitions support the interaction but begin at different accuracies. MR2 and MR3 remain untested locally, with closer public precedents now identified. The reliability note preserves those expectations. S1, S2 and S4's completed phases remain stood down.
The learning-maintenance note preserves the original commissions and assesses their outcomes. The procedural-learning note records the new complete-preservation result without treating it as confirmation of reliable selective editability or repair of the earlier identifier-production problem. Failed acquisition deserves purposeful diagnosis; accepting a publication and closing its broader question remain separate decisions.