Counterfactual Regret for Reflective Agents with Lean-Verified Guarantees

Large language model agents increasingly rely on long-horizon reasoning to solve complex tasks involving planning, tool use, and memory. A critical capability in such settings is reflection: assessing trajectory progress, identifying missing evidence and unreliable intermediate states, and deciding whether to continue, revise, or abandon the current branch. Learning effective reflection, however, is challenging because reflection is performed locally within the current branch, whereas its utility can only be determined by its contribution to the final trajectory outcome. This local-global mismatch makes outcome-based reinforcement learning provide only local, sparse and delayed supervision for reflective decisions. To solve these, we propose LoongReflect, a training framework that formulates reflection as a memory-control policy. The agent operates over a reversible trajectory tree using explicit reflect and backtrack actions. Reflection consolidates verified facts, missing evidence, and branch-specific risks into working memory, while backtracking removes an unreliable branch from the active context and preserves a concise corrective lesson. To learn this policy, LoongReflect combines two complementary signals through a look-ahead, extragradient-style coordination mechanism. A fast channel distills globally informed reflective behavior from a privileged teacher, with supervision restricted to reflection and backtracking tokens. A slow channel optimizes complete trajectories using outcome-based GRPO, aligning local control decisions with final task success. Experiments on multi-hop retrieval-augmented generation and mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate consistent improvements over outcome-only reinforcement learning and self-distillation baselines.

Existing agent memory frameworks mainly create memory through an agent's interaction with the factual world, e.g., remembering feedback from actions taken to improve performance on future tasks. However, these frameworks seldom ask the "what if" question during memory construction: what if a different action had been taken, would the feedback have changed, and how could this feedback become useful memory? Obtaining such feedback directly in an active environment can be expensive and can alter the state needed for comparison. In this work, we introduce COUNTERMEM, a reinforcement-learning framework for constructing and using verified counterfactual memory across tasks. After a failed action, COUNTERMEM evaluates local alternatives from a copy or reset of the original state using executable world models, such as tests, proof checkers, and solvers. It stores improvements with the original and corrected actions, checked outcomes, and conditions for reuse. A learned memory-use policy selects a retrieved record or skips memory to balance task success and interaction cost, while the base LLM remains fixed. Both memory and policy are frozen during held-out evaluation. We evaluate COUNTERMEM on 12 benchmark settings across six domains. With gpt-oss-120b, COUNTERMEM improves both ReAct and Reflexion on all 12 benchmarks across six domains, averaging a gain of 12.6 percentage points over their unaugmented versions. In the four-domain comparison across two backbones, task-run tokens decrease by 7.7-42.0%, excluding offline selector-training costs. Further analyses show that removing verification or persistent storage weakens the gains, while applying verified corrections to unsuitable decisions can reverse them. Code will be released upon acceptance.

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.