Autoreflection: How Agentic Strange Loops Turn Human Culture into AI Infrastructure

Self-evolving agents improve over time by reflecting on past failures, but existing evaluation is limited in two ways: it measures only task scores, leaving reflection quality unknown, and it relies on agents' own episode runs, offering no mechanism to target specific failure patterns. We present \textbf{BenchTrace}, a benchmark for evaluating self-evolution ability in LLM agents. BenchTrace is built on a snapshot-reflection dataset of 1,821 annotated episodes spanning six diverse tasks, and comprises a \textbf{Reflection Evaluation} that probes failure identification through targeted QA tasks, and an \textbf{Evolution Evaluation} that tests whether past failure experience translates into avoidance behavior in a controlled self-evolution simulation. Building on BenchTrace, we propose \textbf{failure avoidance rate (FAR)}, a new evaluation metric measuring the fraction of test cases in which the agent successfully avoids the target failure instance. Experiments with Qwen3-32B and GPT-4.1 reveal that both models fall below a 30% end-to-end pass rate on reflection evaluation, with diagnosis as the primary bottleneck. Evolution evaluation shows that self-evolution methods generally improve FAR over the non-evolving baseline, but agents forget early lessons as noise episodes accumulate, and agents fail to generalize their reflections beyond the specific context, causing negative transfer across task contexts. Our correlation analysis further reveals that only a fully correct reflection is strongly associated with higher FAR. BenchTrace exposes concrete limits of current self-evolution approaches and provides a controlled, model-agnostic framework for targeted evaluation.

Reflexion-style agents rely on self-generated reflections as memory, implicitly assuming that agents can accurately diagnose their own failures. We show that this assumption can fail systematically: across ALFWorld and HumanEval, agents store confident but incorrect interpretations of the task and continue acting on them across trials, even though the environment resets to the correct task each time. We call this failure mode memory confabulation and introduce the Reflection Repetition Rate (RRR), a log-based metric that detects repeated reliance on incorrect reflective content. Using RRR, we identify 16 frozen environments in ALFWorld, where 0 of 121 reflections mention the correct target object, and 4 analogous cases in HumanEval. Our mitigation replaces open-ended self-diagnosis with programmatic extraction of trajectory-level failure signals, increasing correct object mention from 0% to 86%, reducing RRR from 0.64 to 0.10, and solving 3 of 16 frozen ALFWorld environments, suggesting that reflective memory can reinforce false beliefs rather than correct them.

LLMs are increasingly deployed as agents that interact with external environments and observe feedback such as execution results, error messages, and tool outputs. A well-functioning agent should be able to leverage this feedback to accurately assess its own performance. Yet we find a persistent reflection gap: LLM agents tend to mis-assess their own outputs after observing concrete environment feedback -- even for questions they correctly answered -- and standard RL barely helps due to a credit-assignment mismatch. To close this gap, we propose RefGRPO, a simple yet effective fix that augments standard RL algorithms with two key ingredients: a free calibration bonus computed by contrasting the agent's own reflection with the actual outcome (requiring no additional reward model, LLM judge, or external annotation), and a dynamic schedule on its coefficient. Compared to standard RL baselines, our method simultaneously improves reflection calibration (e.g., reduces underconfidence rate $44.4\% \to 7.7\%$) and task accuracy (e.g., $75.1\% \to 76.5\%$) on text-to-SQL across five benchmarks. The resulting calibrated reflection turns the agent into its own verifier grounded in environment feedback, which further enables (i) better self-improvement that uses reflections as pseudo-rewards without outcome supervision, and (ii) more effective test-time selective prediction by committing only to rollouts flagged as correct.