EvoWeave: Composing Reusable Agent Experience through Operation Level Graphs
Authors: Guanhua Zhu, Bo Shen, Lei Zhang, Fadi Deek, Zhi Wei, Mengnan Du, Chenxi Yuan
Organizations: Department of Informatics, New Jersey Institute of Technology · Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology · Department of Computer Science, New Jersey Institute of Technology · School of Artificial Intelligence, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen
Different tasks often require interactive agents to perform similar operations at intermediate steps. Retrieving an entire past workflow can introduce irrelevant steps, whereas retrieving isolated operations can discard the dependencies needed to reuse them. We introduce EvoWeave, a framework for experience memory that represents abstract states as nodes and reusable operations as directed edges with input and output contracts, provenance, and capability references. A planner decomposes the current task into a dependency graph; operation retrieval and bounded directed search then assemble relevant experience fragments. An execution agent can inspect these fragments and their referenced capabilities, while reflection separates concrete execution evidence from reusable abstractions. We study the framework across four benchmarks, five evaluation settings, and three language model backbones. Across backbones, AppWorld Normal and Challenge task goal completion average 51.91 and 27.99, respectively, exceeding the baseline without memory by 6.99 and 4.99 percentage points. An AppWorld ablation associates directed connections with an additional improvement of 2.08 points over independent operation cards. The results motivate composition of reusable operations while exposing tradeoffs in retrieval overhead and conditions for valid reuse.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Motivation for reusing individual operations and capability fragments. The illustrative comparison contrasts retrieving an entire historical workflow or capability file with selecting relevant operations and functions for a new task. Selective reuse aims to reduce irrelevant context while supporting composition across partially overlapping experiences. The figure is conceptual; its step counts and anticipated benefits are not experimental measurements or claims about every prior method.
Figure 2: Overview of EvoWeave. A planner generates a task DAG that guides retrieval from an experience graph, whose nodes represent states and edges represent operations. The main agent uses retrieved experience and relevant capabilities, while the reflector separates concrete step summaries from abstract operation summaries. Shared memory updates follow the declared construction or evaluation protocol. Capability and role refinement in the diagram describe the broader architecture; evaluated implementation boundaries are detailed in Appendix B .
AppWorld Normal
AppWorld Challenge
WebArena
ALFWorld
ScienceWorld
Method
TGC
SGC
TGC
SGC
SR
Score
Score
DeepSeek-V3.2
No-Memory
47.02±2.75
30.36±3.30
23.02±1.97
9.35±1.83
42.00±1.36
69.40±2.41
64.70±2.52
Flat-Memory
49.05±3.03
32.14±3.68
23.02±2.16
9.35±2.01
43.00±1.49
71.94±2.59
67.20±2.77
AWM
52.02±2.92
35.00±3.62
24.99±2.12
10.50±1.99
46.01±1.44
73.88±2.47
68.70±2.67
ReasoningBank
52.01±3.99
35.00±4.95
26.00±2.92
11.88±2.76
43.00±1.97
71.34±3.46
67.70±3.66
Table 1: Main results reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD), with the ± SD terms shown as subscripts. All entries retain the original score scale from 0 to 100. Within each backbone block, the highest mean in a column is shaded and the second highest is underlined ; tied values receive the same mark.
Figure 3: Category performance averaged equally over three backbones. Each spoke uses a local linear range determined by all eight methods; brackets give its inner and outer bounds in original score units. Compare methods on the same spoke: distances across spokes, panels, and polygon areas are not directly comparable. Labels and the scaling rule are defined in Appendix C . These category aggregates are distinct from Table 1 ; see Appendix A .
Configuration
Normal TGC
Challenge TGC
Overall TGC
A: No memory
44.92
23.01
29.30
B: Whole workflow RAG
46.59
23.02
29.79
C: Operation cards
47.93
24.72
31.39
D: C + directed connections
50.74
26.51
33.47
E: C + active retrieval
49.90
25.94
32.82
F: EvoWeave (full)
51.91
27.99
34.86
Table 2: AppWorld ablation, averaged equally over backbones. Overall TGC uses weights based on task counts of 168 Normal and 417 Challenge tasks within each backbone. These configurations are specific to AppWorld; only point estimates are shown. Configurations are ordered so that the full system appears last, and the highest value in each column is shown in bold.
Experience layer
States
Operations
Mean count
27.0
157.6
Capability layer
Code
Skills
Roles
Mean nodes
185.2
82.2
6.8
Mean links to operations
157.6
362.0
99.4
Table 3: Mean memory size over the five settings. Counts describe the reported graph snapshots, not an inferred average topology. Capability links connect the corresponding node type to operations. Counts of role nodes do not establish that learning of role prompts was evaluated.
Figure 4: Mean operation overlap and reported memory referencing across task types. Each type receives equal weight; overlap comparisons are restricted to tasks of the same type. Labels show type counts, and bars show percentages on a scale from 0 to 100. Benchmark specific overlap proxies and reference rates are distinct measures (Appendix G ).
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Item
Evaluation scope and reporting convention
Benchmarks
AppWorld Test-Normal and Test-Challenge, WebArena, ALFWorld, and ScienceWorld. These give five settings from four benchmarks.
Backbones
DeepSeek-V3.2, GPT-4.1-mini, and Qwen3.8-27B.
Deployment
Qwen served locally on an institutional HPC cluster; DeepSeek-V3.2 and GPT-4.1-mini accessed through API calls.
Methods
No-Memory, Flat-Memory, AWM, ReasoningBank, Mem0, ExpeL, A-MEM, and EvoWeave.
Main metrics
AppWorld TGC and SGC, WebArena SR, and separate scores for ALFWorld and ScienceWorld, all on scales from 0 to 100.
Memory construction
Online over the evaluation stream. Every run starts from an empty memory, uses the released benchmark task order, and is independent across the 15 backbone and setting combinations. No training or development data is used, and episode level success is judged by a language model module shared by all methods rather than by the benchmark scorer.
Appendix
Table 4: Evaluation scope and reporting conventions.
Reference parameter
Default value
Operation retrieval cosine threshold / maximum candidates
0.72 / 3
Cosine threshold for merge candidates / maximum candidates
0.82 / 3
BFS maximum depth / expansions
8 / 1,000
Maximum visible operation cards
18
Skill retrieval cosine threshold / maximum cards
0.35 / 8
Code retrieval cosine threshold / maximum cards
0.35 / 4
Appendix
Table 5: Default parameters of the reference implementation. These specify the retrieval procedure and are distinct from the settings of individual experimental runs.
Figure 5: DeepSeek-V3.2 category performance across five settings. Each spoke uses the local range printed beside its category. All eight methods are retained.
Figure 6: GPT-4.1-mini category performance across the five settings. These curves are inputs from individual backbones to the equal averages over backbones in Figure 3 .
Figure 7: Qwen3.8-27B category performance across the five settings. Each spoke uses the local score range printed beside its category.
Configuration
Normal TGC
Challenge TGC
Overall TGC
A: No memory
47.02
23.02
29.91
B: Whole workflow RAG
49.05
23.02
30.50
C: Operation cards
49.09
24.36
31.46
D: C + directed connections
52.75
25.21
33.12
E: C + active retrieval
52.20
25.67
33.29
F: EvoWeave (full)
54.05
27.00
34.77
Appendix
Table 6: DeepSeek-V3.2 AppWorld ablation.
Configuration
Normal TGC
Challenge TGC
Overall TGC
A: No memory
35.71
16.98
22.36
B: Whole workflow RAG
36.67
16.02
21.95
C: Operation cards
38.50
17.81
23.75
D: C + directed connections
39.84
19.80
25.56
E: C + active retrieval
39.11
18.86
24.68
F: EvoWeave (full)
40.60
21.01
26.64
Appendix
Table 7: GPT-4.1-mini AppWorld ablation.
Configuration
Normal TGC
Challenge TGC
Overall TGC
A: No memory
52.02
29.02
35.63
B: Whole workflow RAG
54.05
30.02
36.92
C: Operation cards
56.20
31.99
38.94
D: C + directed connections
59.63
34.51
41.72
E: C + active retrieval
58.40
33.30
40.51
F: EvoWeave (full)
61.07
35.97
43.18
Appendix
Table 8: Qwen3.8-27B AppWorld ablation.
States
Ops.
Code
Skills
Roles
Setting
Nodes
Links
Nodes
Links
Nodes
Links
AppWorld Normal
37
173
405
173
56
142
9
117
AppWorld Challenge
51
431
467
431
139
825
9
216
WebArena
18
67
17
67
180
562
5
61
ALFWorld
9
14
11
14
6
27
1
8
ScienceWorld
20
103
26
103
30
254
10
95
Appendix
Table 9: Reported graph statistics for each setting. Ops. denotes directed operation edges. Links denotes references from capabilities to operations, not state transition edges.
Figure 8: Graph composition for the five evaluation settings. Each panel shows the experience layer and tool layer, each normalized to 100%. Labels report counts and shares within the corresponding layer; totals appear beside the bars. Solid fills indicate nodes and hatched fills indicate operation edges or capability links. The keys below each panel give all six tool components, including those with very small shares. Source counts are retained in Table 9 .
Method
Injected
Input
KV reuse (%)
Output
Rounds
s/round
No-Memory
0.00
103,690.00
70
4,925.00
18.52
9.52
Flat-Memory
26,300.80
127,710.80
78
4,829.20
17.96
9.79
AWM
19,890.00
114,140.00
78
4,479.80
16.78
9.66
ReasoningBank
11,872.00
103,192.00
77
4,341.00
16.32
9.54
Mem0
8,500.00
113,140.00
76
4,974.00
18.66
9.51
ExpeL
28,011.60
123,961.60
78
4,564.20
17.02
9.82
Appendix
Table 10: Efficiency metrics. Injected, Input, and Output denote token counts per question. Rounds and seconds per round are averages. The summaries do not fully specify the model calls included in each token metric.
Figure 9: AppWorld Normal: category overlap and reported memory referencing. Categories reflect proxies based on database models; their task counts need not partition the overall task set.
Figure 10: AppWorld Challenge: category percentages, with task counts shown alongside labels. The nine types receive equal weight in Figure 4 . Task membership can overlap across categories.
Figure 11: WebArena: overlap of evaluation operators and reported memory referencing. The five single site categories cover 764 of the 812 tasks; the remaining 48 span more than one site and are included in the main table but not in any category, as explained in Appendix A .
Figure 12: ALFWorld: overlap of high level action sets and reported memory referencing. Repeated action vocabulary does not itself establish matching objects, preconditions, or successful execution.
Figure 13: ScienceWorld: overlap of gold verb sets and reported memory referencing across 90 tasks. S1 to S10 follow the topic key in Appendix C .
Memory is essential as language agents move from isolated tasks to long-horizon, stateful workflows, yet existing evaluations often reduce it to retrieval or question answering. We introduce ContextWeave, a longitudinal benchmark that evaluates whether recalled experience improves downstream agent performance in realistic office-work streams. ContextWeave reconstructs privacy-preserved, multi-month workflows of 14 participants into 1,005 executable tasks, including 568 core evaluation tasks, with instructions, containerized environments, trajectories, and task-specific rubrics. It measures workspace quality and alignment with participant-specific preferences, complemented by diagnostics of relevance, continuity, solvability, and robustness to misleading recall. Across six memory components under a fixed model, the strongest configuration raises Workspace Score from 68.08 to 78.20 and Preference Score from 41.50 to 70.60. With a fixed memory component, recall improves both outcomes for all five tested base models, although gains vary substantially. Our analysis shows that actionable, experience-rich memory supports workflow continuation and reduces redundant exploration more effectively than compact summaries, while it can also be more susceptible to misleading recall. These findings motivate memory systems that optimize not only retrieval relevance but also reliable use during execution.
Bo Wang, Yuqian Yao, Enxi Wang +25
1Fudan University · 2Shanghai Innovation Institute · 3ByteDance
Large language model (LLM) agents now autonomously complete long-horizon tasks, such as repository-level coding, through hundreds of think-act steps, yet the experience each run produces is rarely reused on the next. Prior memory systems concentrate on retrieval, finding the most relevant past trajectory. Retrieval cannot observe the running agent, so it cannot decide whether the agent needs an experience, at which point, or for how long. We introduce REM (Reusable Experience Memory), a framework that manages the memory lifecycle from inside the agent's think-act loop through three explicit decisions. What to store: each completed trajectory is consolidated into a phase-structured document, two orders of magnitude smaller than the trajectory. When to recall: the document is injected at the start of the task; the costlier implementation record is withheld until an in-loop gate detects the agent struggling. What to forget: the record is evicted after a single exposure. On repository-level bug fixing (SWE-ContextBench Lite), REM retrieves the related trajectory more accurately than every state-of-the-art memory system (68.7% vs. 55.6% match@1) and improves, in every replicate, end-task resolution (27.6% vs. 24.9%) at 17% lower cost. Injecting the same experience as a summary or raw trajectory, even when oracle-retrieved, does not. Ablating any of the three decisions reduces resolution. Altogether, these results demonstrate that the bottleneck in experience reuse is not retrieval fidelity but how experience is stored and governed across its lifecycle, opening a control-theoretic perspective on agent memory.
Xinyi Lisa Chen, Pedro Herrero-Vidal, Xiaohan Chen +6
An agent can complete a task without improving how it works. Turning task experience into reusable capability requires connecting the changed component to its evaluation and subsequent use. We present AgentEvolver, a system for developing capabilities during task execution while keeping the foundation model fixed. Eight entity families expose reusable operations, methods, agents, control flow, interfaces, and supporting state to revision through a common versioned lifecycle. A shared Runtime coordinates ongoing work, while persistent planning and recoverable context preserve task direction and supporting evidence. We evaluate task outcomes on SWE-bench Pro Public and examine capability changes in six application cases. The team reports an 82.08% resolution rate with evolution, exceeding its reported baseline without evolution. The cases show retained capabilities entering later website, game, and research work, while also documenting incomplete objectives and an unsuccessful strategy. These findings distinguish improvement in a reusable component from success on the final task. AgentEvolver provides a concrete basis for studying capability accumulation through execution; independent-task transfer and total development cost remain open questions.