Reward Engine: Reward-Centric Self-Evolution for Open-Ended Tool Agents
Organizations: Huawei openJiuwen Team · Department of Statistics and Data Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK)
Abstract
Open-ended tool agents can complete the same objective through different tool paths, and their quality depends jointly on the interaction trace, environment state, and final artifacts, so such tasks rarely admit an executable ground-truth reward. The central challenge is therefore to construct a reward from existing experience that exposes the current policy's failures while remaining stationary during optimization. We introduce Reward Engine, which, like a self-motivated student, first works out what success requires and then optimizes toward it. From the task and initial trajectories, it builds a RewardPack of testcases for required correctness and rubrics for graded quality, each executed as a check that returns a judgment with evidence. The frozen RewardPack then guides the agent to revise and select its outputs, and can also serve as a reward for reinforcement learning. On WorkBuddy Bench Office and Claw-Eval, the constructed reward largely agrees with the benchmark graders, not reversing their ordering on 82.3% and 80.5% of candidate pairs. Used to revise executions, it raises three-run consistency () over Baseline from 45.0% to 54.0% and from 78.4% to 83.7%.
Figures & tables
| Method | Mean | Avg. pass (%) | mean [95% CI] | Sign |
| WorkBuddy Bench Office | ||||
| Baseline | 81.05 | 66.67 | — | — |
| Revision | 81.10 | 70.67 | +0.05 [ 2.42, 2.27] | 0.0649 |
| Selected by reward | 82.21 | 71.33 | +1.16 [ 1.60, 3.96] | 0.0854 |
| Claw-Eval | ||||
| Baseline | 89.44 | 89.74 | — | — |
| WorkBuddy Bench Office | Claw-Eval | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) |
| Baseline | 85.00 | 45.00 | 98.08 | 78.37 |
| Revision | 84.00 | 56.00 | 98.08 | 87.50 |
| Selected by reward | 86.00 | 54.00 | 100.00 | 83.65 |
| Quantity | WorkBuddy Bench Office | Claw-Eval |
|---|---|---|
| Uniform selected score | 80.38 82.21 | 89.11 91.47 |
| Gain over uniform [95% CI] | +1.83 [0.22, 3.61] | +2.36 [1.56, 3.20] |
| Headroom recovered (%) | 25.76 | 39.40 |
| Selection regret [95% CI] | 5.29 [2.92, 8.53] | 3.63 [2.81, 4.49] |
| Best-hit rate (%) | 49.33 | 58.65 |
| Task set | Agreement (%) [95% CI] | [95% CI] |
|---|---|---|
| WorkBuddy Bench Office | ||
| All tasks | 82.33 [74.67, 89.33] | 0.647 [0.493, 0.787] |
| Distinguishable tasks | 84.69 [77.21, 91.50] | 0.694 [0.544, 0.830] |
| Claw-Eval | ||
| All tasks | 80.53 [74.75, 86.08] | 0.611 [0.495, 0.722] |
| Distinguishable tasks | 81.72 [75.96, 87.21] | 0.634 [0.519, 0.744] |
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Method | Executable checks a | Evidence receipts b | Counterexample testing c | Regression gate d | Frozen during use e | Reported use |
| Judges, rubrics, and verifiers | ||||||
| LLM-as-a-judge [ Zheng et al., 2023 ] | No | No | No | No | — | Evaluation |
| Prometheus [ Kim et al., 2024 ] | No | No | No | No | — | Evaluation |
| LMUnit [ Saad-Falcon et al., 2025 ] | No | No | No | No | — | Evaluation |
| Agent-as-a-Judge [ Zhuge et al., 2025 ] | No | Part. | No | No | — | Evaluation |
| Autorubric [ Rao and Callison-Burch, 2026 ] | No | Part. | No | No | Yes | Evaluation, RL |
| Symbol | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Task and actor | |
| Public task requirements. | |
| , | Public information: the task, genuine user updates, permitted public knowledge, the execution history, and ; it excludes hidden benchmark answers and grading outputs. is the new public evidence admitted at a round boundary. |
| Initial task-only runs available for construction (three per task). | |
| Actor: a model run in the Actor Harness, held fixed. | |
| , , | Actor context, action, and observation at step . |
| Record | Producer | Fields |
|---|---|---|
| Criterion ( ) | Jury | Identifier; standard; hard or soft kind with its origin and evidence; applicability and priority rationale; measurement question; subrequirements; fail, partial, and full anchors. |
| Test binding ( ) | Builder | Test and criterion identifiers; checker key, which a registry dispatches to a function or model evaluator; arguments; question; rubric; optional tool recipe of tool calls and restricted computations. |
| Measurement record (receipt ) | Harness | Artifact and environment snapshots; scope; reward and check versions; input references; procedure type; observations; judgment; execution status. |
| Scope | Caller | Applicable requirements and conversation, admitted sources, user amendments, and environment assumptions. |
| Version metadata | QC | Version identity and hash; parent version; changed criteria and checks; fresh measurements; review records bound to the identity, scope, and hash; selection rationale. |
| Repair ledger ( ) | QC | Case identity; material (artifact and history); case type (control, error, or boundary); targeted criterion; reference label; agreement recorded once per version and replayed. |
| Benchmark | Candidate generation and models | External grading |
|---|---|---|
| WorkBuddy Bench Office | Three sequential iterations, each producing task-only, reward-guided revision, and hypothesis-guided candidates; results are aggregated across all three iterations. Actor: DeepSeek V4 Flash. | Official task-specific composite of deterministic rules and a model judge (rule weight 0.70–0.95). |
| Claw-Eval | Three sequential rounds of fresh candidates with same-task pool, checks, memory, and RewardPack carryover. Actor: DeepSeek V4 Flash; Jury and proposal roles also use MiniMax, Qwen, and GLM models. | Native grader with a custom DeepSeek V4 Flash judge. |
| Quantity | Revision | Selected by reward |
|---|---|---|
| WorkBuddy Bench Office | ||
| mean | +0.05 [ 2.42, 2.27] | +1.16 [ 1.60, 3.96] |
| avg. pass (pp) | +4.00 [ 3.33, 11.00] | +4.67 [ 1.33, 11.00] |
| (pp) | 1.00 [ 10.00, 7.00] | +1.00 [ 7.00, 8.00] |
| (pp) | +11.00 [2.00, 21.00] | +9.00 [0.00, 19.00] |
| Median | +1.12 | +0.94 |
| Task-only candidate | Revision | Selected by reward | ||||
| Round | Mean | Pass (%) | Mean | Pass (%) | Mean | Pass (%) |
| WorkBuddy Bench Office | ||||||
| Initial | 77.67 | 64.00 | 81.67 | 70.00 | 81.46 | 66.00 |
| Final | 79.41 | 62.00 | 81.30 | 70.00 | 83.52 | 76.00 |
| Claw-Eval | ||||||
| Initial | 91.24 | 94.23 | 91.13 | 92.31 | 92.51 | 97.12 |
Tool-Using Agents
Tool-using agents plan and act through external tools, APIs, software interfaces, and environments to complete tasks beyond language generation.
See all 289 papers