ASCENT: Online Test-Time Training of Long-Horizon Agents via Self-Distillation of Verified Experience

Haodong Lu; Dong Gong

cs.LGOct 4, 2026

ASCENT: Online Test-Time Training of Long-Horizon Agents via Self-Distillation of Verified Experience

Authors: Haodong Lu, Dong Gong

Organizations: University of New South Wales (UNSW Sydney)

Abstract

A large language model (LLM) agent solves long-horizon tasks through many reasoning-action turns, with one verification signal at termination. Deployed agents face streams of related tasks, making their trajectories a natural resource for improvement. In-context adaptation agents store reflections, memories, or skills as text, so reuse depends on retrieving the right experience and on a frozen policy executing it. We study Online Agentic Test-Time Training (OaTTT), which trains the LLM's weights on its own execution trajectories during deployment. The agent executes each task once, in one pass over the stream, and the executed trajectory with its verification result is the only learning signal for weight updates that persist across tasks. Directly imitating or reinforcing the generated tokens of this single attempt destabilizes the policy. We introduce ASCENT (Agentic Self-distillation for Cross-task EvolutioN at Test-time), which instead self-distills verified experience. A stable version of the LLM, its frozen initial copy, receives the verified trajectory as privileged information and predicts next-token distributions along it with this hindsight. Distilling them into persistent LoRA fast weights updates the agent for later tasks, without an external reference solution or stronger teacher. By further removing invalid-action turns, ASCENT distills enhanced privileged experience for more efficient execution. We characterize its population target and the limits of sparse outcome selection. Across ALFWorld, WebShop, and AppWorld at varied model scales, ASCENT improves task success and interaction efficiency as experience accumulates, outperforms online adaptation methods, and transfers to held-out scenes, showing that an agent can consolidate verified experience into its weights without a separate training phase or memory retrieval. Project page: https://artificer-ai-lab.github.io/ASCENT

Figures & tables

Figure 1 : Imitation and reinforcement lose executable behavior. Online per-episode updates (Sec. 3.2 ) of Qwen3.5-4B on the ALFWorld seen stream, with std shading: (a) first-response-token entropy, (b) KL to the initial policy, (c) valid-action rate, and (d) generated tokens per turn.

Figure 2 : Online Agentic Test-Time Training of ASCENT. The student makes a single attempt per task. A verified trajectory becomes privileged information for the frozen teacher, whose soft targets update the LoRA fast weights for the next task. Charts on the right show ALFWorld seen-stream means of 4B and 9B runs (per-scale in Fig. 5 (a) and Table 1 ). Episode time includes the update.

Method	Pick	Look	Clean	Heat	Cool	Pick2	Avg. SR	Turns	Time GPU·h / s
Qwen3.5-4B
Base	91.4	46.2	40.7	6.2	8.0	54.2	46.4	35.1	97
Offline
MemP	94.3	53.8	77.8	0.0	36.0	66.7	61.4 $\pm$ 6.5	28.6	5.2 / 61
ACE	85.7	46.2	70.4	6.2	60.0	58.3	60.7 $\pm$ 9.2	31.1	6.3 / 81
EvoSkill	93.3	17.9	35.8	6.2	32.0	66.7	49.8 $\pm$ 4.9	34.4	5.9 / 123

Table 1: ALFWorld seen-stream results. Success rate (SR, %) by task type and over the full stream, mean turns per episode, and runtime, given as training GPU-hours / evaluation seconds per episode for offline methods and seconds per episode otherwise. Bold indicates the highest SR and fewest mean turns within each backbone.

	Qwen3.5-4B				Qwen3.5-9B
Method	Strict-SR	Mean-Score	Turns	Time GPU·h / s	Strict-SR	Mean-Score	Turns	Time GPU·h / s
Base	17.8	25.9	39.5	87	17.2	27.8	37.5	166
Offline
MemP (offline)	33.2 $\pm$ 1.3	43.7 $\pm$ 2.0	30.0	6.9 / 74	26.6 $\pm$ 1.3	40.6 $\pm$ 2.8	31.9	12.3 / 148
ACE (offline)	5.8 $\pm$ 0.5	21.4 $\pm$ 1.1	42.0	9.4 / 122	13.2 $\pm$ 0.6	22.4 $\pm$ 1.4	41.6	16.4 / 229
EvoSkill	20.0 $\pm$ 1.6	29.3 $\pm$ 1.9	38.0	2.06 / 84	20.2 $\pm$ 2.1	33.4 $\pm$ 1.4	38.2	2.33 / 169

Table 2 : WebShop results. Strict-SR (%) denotes task_score

=1

, and Mean-Score (%) averages task_score over each 500-task stream. Offline runtime is training GPU-hours / evaluation seconds per episode, and other entries are seconds per episode. Bold indicates the highest Strict-SR and Mean-Score and the fewest turns within each backbone.

Panel of Figure 3 — Figure 3 : Cross-scene transfer and continued OaTTT on ALFWorld unseen. Transfer freezes the seen-stream adaptation state, whereas continued OaTTT resumes online updates. More in Tables 4 – 5 .

Figure 4 : Quantitative analysis on Alfworld. Columns show the base, two representative in-context adaptation failures (irrelevant or contradictory retrieved memory, or relevant guidance left unfollowed), and ASCENT, which carries LoRA updates from two earlier cool-then-place tasks and retrieves no memory. Numbers are turn indices. Checks mark valid actions, crosses mark invalid or non-action outputs, and ellipses omit turns.

Panel of Figure 5 — Figure 5 : Analysis of online gains, preliminary co-evolution, and divergence ablation. (a) Mean success-rate gain and turns saved by ASCENT over the base, by task range and over all tasks (lighter bars 4B, darker 9B, with turns on tasks solved by both the un-evolved base model and ASCENT in Table 8 ). (b) Preliminary in-context and parametric co-evolution. (c) Distillation-divergence ablation, pre-update SR (%) at both scales, with forward KL as default.

		Qwen3.5-4B			Qwen3.5-9B
Privileged information $z_{i}$	Filter	SR (%)	Turns	Valid (%)	SR (%)	Turns	Valid (%)
Base	–	$46.4$	$35.1$	$70.1$	$55.0$	$32.6$	$78.7$
	✗	$48.8$	$32.9$	$64.4$	$42.9$	$34.1$	$66.2$
Action only: $a_{i,t}$	✓	$48.3$	$33.5$	$61.2$	$48.6$	$32.3$	$71.4$
	✗	$62.9$	$28.0$	$74.6$	$\mathbf{77.9}$	$21.1$	$86.6$
Reasoning $+$ action $+$ observation: $(w_{i,t},o_{i,t+1})$	✓	$64.5$	$28.3$	$\mathbf{79.5}$	$77.1$	$23.8$	$\mathbf{88.2}$

Table 3: Privileged-information ablation on ALFWorld seen, with the action-validity filter off (✗) or on (✓). The shaded row is ASCENT’s default (reasoning

+

action with the filter).

Figure 6 : Teacher prompt template. For a verifier-accepted episode, the privileged information

z_{i}

is prepended to each shared student prefix. The empty think block reflects disabled thinking mode. Each response’s reasoning is the visible ReAct rationale before the action tag.

Method	Pick	Look	Clean	Heat	Cool	Pick2	Avg.SR	Mean turns (all)	Time s/ep
Qwen3.5-4B
Base	87.5	38.9	29.0	8.7	28.6	76.5	43.3	36.2	107
Offline
MemP (offline)	91.7	72.2	64.5	8.7	52.4	76.5	60.4 $\pm$ 4.5	30.0	69
ACE (offline)	79.2	33.3	41.9	8.7	42.9	23.5	39.6 $\pm$ 3.2	38.5	106
EvoSkill	83.3	40.7	29.0	5.8	47.6	58.8	43.0 $\pm$ 4.6	37.4	146

Table 4: ALFWorld held-out transfer. Success rate (SR, %) by task type and over the full held-out stream, mean turns per episode, and runtime (s/episode). Seen-stream artifacts remain fixed. Bold indicates the highest SR (including ties) and fewest mean turns within each backbone.

Method	Pick	Look	Clean	Heat	Cool	Pick2	Avg.SR ( $\Delta$ vs Transfer)	Mean turns (all)	Time s/ep
Qwen3.5-4B
Base	87.5	38.9	29.0	8.7	28.6	76.5	43.3	36.2	107
Online adaptation on unseen stream
MemP	100.0	94.4	74.2	21.7	33.3	64.7	64.9 $\pm$ 4.8 ( $+$ 7.4)	28.2	58
ReasoningBank	87.5	33.3	48.4	26.1	52.4	52.9	50.7 $\pm$ 7.3 ( $+$ 5.2)	35.0	89
ACE	75.0	11.1	3.2	0.0	9.5	35.3	21.6 $\pm$ 5.2 ( $+$ 1.5)	45.5	225

Table 5: ALFWorld continued OaTTT. Pre-update success rate (SR, %) by task type and over the held-out stream, mean turns per episode, and runtime (s/episode).

\Delta

is the change from frozen transfer in Table 4 . Bold indicates the highest SR (including ties) and fewest mean turns within each backbone.

	Test-Normal		Test-Challenge
Method	TGC	SGC	TGC	SGC
Base	20.2	5.4	15.8	5.8
MemP	22.0 $\pm$ 2.1	1.8 $\pm$ 0.2	16.1 $\pm$ 3.3	5.8 $\pm$ 0.7
ReasoningBank	19.6 $\pm$ 1.9	3.6 $\pm$ 0.7	19.2 $\pm$ 2.8	4.3 $\pm$ 1.1
ACE	22.0 $\pm$ 4.1	3.6 $\pm$ 1.2	14.4 $\pm$ 3.9	2.2 $\pm$ 2.0
A-Mem	14.3 $\pm$ 0.4	8.9 $\pm$ 1.2	11.3 $\pm$ 1.1	2.2 $\pm$ 0.4

Table 6: AppWorld online results. Task-goal completion (TGC, %) and scenario-goal completion (SGC, %) on Test-Normal and Test-Challenge with Qwen3.5-4B.

Teacher	Schedule	SR (%)	Early $\rightarrow$ late SR (%)
Fixed
ASCENT (frozen $\pi_{0}$ )	fixed	69.5	59.0 $\rightarrow$ 75.2
EMA of the student
EMA	$\beta=0.999$	61.4	48.6 $\rightarrow$ 77.1
EMA	$\beta=0.99$	57.1	54.3 $\rightarrow$ 57.1
EMA	$\beta=0.90$	24.3	48.6 $\rightarrow$ 2.9

Table 7: Analysis of teacher evolution in OaTTT on ALFWorld seen. The snapshot teacher is a copy of the student that is refreshed every

N

updates (the frozen

\pi_{0}

before the first refresh). Early and late refer to tasks 1–35 and 106–140, respectively.

Panel of Figure 7 — Figure 7 : Dynamics of teacher evolution in OaTTT on ALFWorld seen. Qwen3.5-4B with evolving teachers: (a,b) trailing 30-episode success against the frozen teacher in the same setup, with triangles at snapshot refreshes, and (c) stream success against the mean teacher–student adapter distance $\|\bar{\phi}-\phi\|_{2}$ before each update, with the frozen teacher as the dashed line.

Scale	Both won	ASCENT only	Base only	Mean $\Delta T$	Median $\Delta T$	ASCENT uses fewer turns (%)
4B	$61.7$ $\pm$ 1.2	$35.7$ $\pm$ 6.6	$3.3$ $\pm$ 1.2	$-4.8$ $\pm$ 0.9	$-2.3$ $\pm$ 0.5	$63.8$ $\pm$ 1.8
9B	$74.3$ $\pm$ 0.5	$34.0$ $\pm$ 2.2	$2.7$ $\pm$ 0.5	$-7.0$ $\pm$ 0.3	$-3.5$ $\pm$ 0.4	$67.3$ $\pm$ 4.7

Table 8: Shared-success turn comparison on ALFWorld seen.

\Delta T=T_{\mathrm{ASCENT}}-T_{\mathrm{Base}}

on tasks solved by both the un-evolved base model and ASCENT, so negative values favor ASCENT. The first three columns count the tasks in the 140-task stream solved by both, by ASCENT only, and by the base only. The last column is the percentage of shared successes on which ASCENT uses fewer turns than the base. Entries are mean

\pm

std of per-run statistics over the 3 paired runs per scale.

Panel of Figure 8 — Figure 8 : Memory retrieval and success on ALFWorld seen. For the retrieval-based in-context adaptation baseline, bars show means with std error bars: (a) retrieval of an available prior same-type success, and (b) success by memory availability and retrieval.

Explore similar work

No Time Like the Present: Agentic Test-Time Training for LLM Agents
Jul 3, 2026Yanbo Wang, Jinhua Hao, Yuze Shi +2Test-Time Training Large Language Model Training
Kuaishou Technology
Learn Now, Use Next, Trust Later: Prequential Test-Time Learning for LLM Agents
Sep 28, 2026Tong Zhao, Reed Li, Yuyang Hu +5Large Language Model Agents Next
Renmin University of China · Tencent
CASCADE: Case-Based Continual Adaptation for Large Language Models During Deployment
May 5, 2026Siyuan Guo, Yali Du, Hechang Chen +2Post-Deployment Adaptation Large Language Model Agents
aSchool of Artificial Intelligence, Jilin University. · bEngineering Research Center of Knowledge-Driven Human-Machine Intelligence, Jilin University. · cInternational Center of Future Science, Jilin University. +3

Jul 3, 2026, cs.LGJ/K move · Enter open · S save

No Time Like the Present: Agentic Test-Time Training for LLM Agents

Yanbo Wang, Jinhua Hao, Yuze Shi, Kun Yuan+1

Kuaishou Technology

Test-Time Training Large Language Model Training Test-Time Scaling

Open paper AskPDF arXiv

LLM agents often degrade over long episodes: as trajectories grow, they revisit explored states, repeat failed actions, and lose strategies that previously worked. Test-time training (TTT) offers a way to adapt model weights to the evolving task state, but existing LLM TTT methods largely adapt once to a fixed input. We study continuous TTT in multi-turn agent episodes, where each update changes the policy that generates later training text. This creates a self-training loop that helps when new trajectory information appears, but can amplify drift when the agent gets stuck and repeatedly trains on similar text. We find that update-text repetition distinguishes these regimes and introduce Agentic Test-Time Training (aTTT), a token-level reweighting method that downweights the loss on tokens appearing in repeated

n

-grams from prior updates while leaving novel tokens fully weighted. To run such updates inside live episodes, we build a concurrent serving system using vLLM's runtime LoRA API, limiting overhead to 1.9

\times

the no-TTT cost. aTTT improves success by up to 5.0 points on ALFWorld and 4.9 points on SWE-bench Lite. The gains concentrate where models already have task competence but drift over long trajectories, suggesting that aTTT mainly preserves existing competence rather than teaching new abilities.

Abstract

Explore similar work

No Time Like the Present: Agentic Test-Time Training for LLM Agents

Learn Now, Use Next, Trust Later: Prequential Test-Time Learning for LLM Agents

CASCADE: Case-Based Continual Adaptation for Large Language Models During Deployment