Autonomous computer-use agents are increasingly applied to long-horizon tasks requiring coordinated application calls, persistent state tracking, and verifier-sensitive writes, yet they remain prone to procedural failures: misreading application state, tool semantics, or task progress. Procedural memory promises more consistent decisions and less redundant exploration, but constructing high-quality memory without model training remains challenging. We introduce CONTRAMEM, a source-flexible, training-free framework for self-evolving procedural memory that treats same-task outcome variation as supervision: differences in correctness, efficiency, recovery, and failure modes expose outcome-relevant procedural distinctions, distilled into a compact bank of app-level Function Cards and task-level Skill Cards that evolves through localized curation rather than append-only accumulation or whole-bank rewriting. On held-out GAIA2/ARE computer-use tasks, CONTRAMEM more than doubles the success rate across the three source-model targets (26.2% to 55.3%), with consistent per-model gains (GPT-5.5: 27.5 to 61.0; Claude Sonnet 4.6: 28.0 to 52.5; DeepSeek V4 Pro: 23.0 to 52.5). The same bank transfers unchanged to the unseen Qwen3.7 Plus (18.5 to 35.5), indicating transferable procedural knowledge rather than model-specific behavior. The same construction carries over unchanged to AppWorld, beating both no memory and its own single-source self-memory variant for all three mid-tier agents on both public test splits. Under a matched trajectory budget, heterogeneous multi-model trajectories yield stronger memory than self- or same-model multi-rollout memory: the margin comes from contrastive behavioral diversity, not stronger source agents or more sampling.
Zheyuan Deng, B.-L. Lu, Hanqi Feng et al.· 0 citations
Progress in large language models is often summarized using a single scalar measure, such as a time horizon, a latent ability estimate, or an aggregate benchmark score. These summaries capture the overall performance, but they do not test whether progress is distributed differently across task difficulty. We find that most of the apparent shift in gains toward harder tasks does not reflect a change in the shape of the difficulty-response curve. On METR time-horizon data, a single Rasch model with rising ability reproduces this pattern, so it is largely explained by ceiling effects rather than a qualitative change in capability. This echoes how the choice of metric can make claimed emergent abilities look like a property of the models themselves. We then identify a smaller hard-task effect that survives this control. Isolating it is difficult on agentic benchmarks, because newer models are usually run with newer agentic harnesses, so a gain on hard tasks cannot be assigned to the model or its scaffold. We break the confound with LiveCodeBench, a public competitive programming benchmark that runs no agentic scaffold while pairing dated models with an exogenous difficulty ordering. After accounting for the rise in overall ability, models released after September 2024 still gain on the hardest problems beyond what their easy and medium performance predicts, by about +0.40 logits under our most conservative assumption, raising the hard-problem solve rate from roughly 18% to 25%. The effect is led by the strongest reasoning models and holds for hard tasks that need only short reasoning, not autonomy over long horizons. We present this as a result specific to competitive programming, since our clean identification rests on a single coding benchmark. We release the LiveCodeBench Difficulty Panel (66 dated models x 1,055 problems) and our analysis code.
Hanwen Xing, Pengyu Wang, Bingxu Meng et al.· 1 citation