Feng, Litong, Qi, Ji, Cheng, Yiran, Pan, Shaowu, Zhang, Xinyu, Li, Qijun · Oct 16, 2026
arXiv cs.AI: Reward Engine: Reward-Centric Self-Evolution for Open-Ended Tool Agents
Markdown · JSON · Original source
Authors Litong Feng, Ji Qi, Yiran Cheng, Shaowu Pan, Xinyu Zhang and Qijun Li argue that open-ended tool agents are hard to score: the same objective can be reached through different tool paths, and quality depends on the interaction trace, environment state and final artifacts. Their approach, Reward Engine, uses the task and initial trajectories to build a RewardPack. Testcases check required correctness; rubrics grade quality, and each check returns a judgment with evidence. The authors say the RewardPack stays frozen during optimization, exposing failures while keeping the reward stationary. It guides agents to revise and select outputs, and can also serve as a reward for . On WorkBuddy Bench Office and Claw-Eval, the constructed reward did not reverse graders’ ordering for 82.3% and 80.5% of candidate pairs, respectively. When used to revise executions, it raised three-run consistency (Pass³) from 45.0% to 54.0% and from 78.4% to 83.7%, respectively, compared with Baseline. These results report agreement and consistency on the named benchmarks; the supplied abstract does not establish performance on other tasks.
Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Oct 16, 2026 (2026-10-16).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-08T17:07:54.259Z. First observed: 2026-11-06T05:03:24.048Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-08T17:03:15.341Z.
Referenced by
Recorded citations and public file attachments. A reference alone does not establish agreement or influence.
No public references recorded here yet.
Limits
The supplied evidence is the page’s abstract and bibliographic material, not the paper’s full methods or results; it does not provide further detail about the tasks or evaluation setup. The reported agreement and consistency results are for WorkBuddy Bench Office and Claw-Eval; this evidence does not establish performance on other tasks. The reported results are the authors’ claims.
Open question
How would Reward Engine perform on tasks beyond WorkBuddy Bench Office and Claw-Eval?
Source-stated
The authors say open-ended tool tasks are difficult to score because different tool paths can reach the same objective, while quality depends on the interaction trace, environment state and final artifacts.
their quality depends jointly on the interaction trace, environment state, and final artifacts, so such tasks rarely admit an executable ground-truth reward
Source-stated
Reward Engine builds a RewardPack from the task and initial trajectories, using testcases for required correctness and rubrics for graded quality; each check returns a judgment with evidence.
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.
Source-stated
The authors report that on WorkBuddy Bench Office and Claw-Eval, the constructed reward did not reverse benchmark graders’ ordering for 82.3% and 80.5% of candidate pairs, respectively.
not reversing their ordering on 82.3\% and 80.5\% of candidate pairs
Source-stated
The authors report that using Reward Engine to revise executions raised three-run consistency (Pass³) from 45.0% to 54.0% and from 78.4% to 83.7%, respectively, compared with Baseline.
it raises three-run consistency ($\mathrm{Pass}^{3}$) over Baseline from 45.0\% to 54.0\% and from 78.4\% to 83.7\%.
Source and contributor context
Feng, Litong, Qi, Ji, Cheng, Yiran, Pan, Shaowu, Zhang, Xinyu, Li, Qijun · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Reinforcement learning
Training by trial and error, in which a system is rewarded for the outcomes its designers want.
Benchmark
A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 35cdc989-62a8-411d-8052-826e91db5316.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-08T17:07:54.259Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 2aa4eded313bddb791aab2ce3c3343995dbda56795b543c2098bccb73593d72e. Source text hash: 756a6bf0826ddc74ccfd1e4c7eba1d9a2192885c47f60f7197f60c62e4ef8bba.
Revision and source-check history
Version 1 · 2026-11-08T17:07:54.259Z
arXiv cs.AI: Reward Engine: Reward-Centric Self-Evolution for Open-Ended Tool Agents
Authors Litong Feng, Ji Qi, Yiran Cheng, Shaowu Pan, Xinyu Zhang and Qijun Li argue that open-ended tool agents are hard to score: the same objective can be reached through different tool paths, and quality depends on the interaction trace, environment state and final artifacts. Their approach, Reward Engine, uses the task and initial trajectories to build a RewardPack. Testcases check required correctness; rubrics grade quality, and each check returns a judgment with evidence. The authors say the RewardPack stays frozen during optimization, exposing failures while keeping the reward stationary. It guides agents to revise and select outputs, and can also serve as a reward for . On WorkBuddy Bench Office and Claw-Eval, the constructed reward did not reverse graders’ ordering for 82.3% and 80.5% of candidate pairs, respectively. When used to revise executions, it raised three-run consistency (Pass³) from 45.0% to 54.0% and from 78.4% to 83.7%, respectively, compared with Baseline. These results report agreement and consistency on the named benchmarks; the supplied abstract does not establish performance on other tasks.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Oct 16, 2026 (2026-10-16).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-08T17:07:54.259Z. First observed: 2026-11-06T05:03:24.048Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-08T17:03:15.341Z.
Limits
The supplied evidence is the page’s abstract and bibliographic material, not the paper’s full methods or results; it does not provide further detail about the tasks or evaluation setup. The reported agreement and consistency results are for WorkBuddy Bench Office and Claw-Eval; this evidence does not establish performance on other tasks. The reported results are the authors’ claims.
Open question
How would Reward Engine perform on tasks beyond WorkBuddy Bench Office and Claw-Eval?
Source-stated
The authors say open-ended tool tasks are difficult to score because different tool paths can reach the same objective, while quality depends on the interaction trace, environment state and final artifacts.
their quality depends jointly on the interaction trace, environment state, and final artifacts, so such tasks rarely admit an executable ground-truth reward
Source-stated
Reward Engine builds a RewardPack from the task and initial trajectories, using testcases for required correctness and rubrics for graded quality; each check returns a judgment with evidence.
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.
Source-stated
The authors report that on WorkBuddy Bench Office and Claw-Eval, the constructed reward did not reverse benchmark graders’ ordering for 82.3% and 80.5% of candidate pairs, respectively.
not reversing their ordering on 82.3\% and 80.5\% of candidate pairs
Source-stated
The authors report that using Reward Engine to revise executions raised three-run consistency (Pass³) from 45.0% to 54.0% and from 78.4% to 83.7%, respectively, compared with Baseline.
it raises three-run consistency ($\mathrm{Pass}^{3}$) over Baseline from 45.0\% to 54.0\% and from 78.4\% to 83.7\%.
Source and contributor context
Feng, Litong, Qi, Ji, Cheng, Yiran, Pan, Shaowu, Zhang, Xinyu, Li, Qijun · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Reinforcement learning
Training by trial and error, in which a system is rewarded for the outcomes its designers want.
Benchmark
A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 35cdc989-62a8-411d-8052-826e91db5316.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-08T17:07:54.259Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 2aa4eded313bddb791aab2ce3c3343995dbda56795b543c2098bccb73593d72e. Source text hash: 756a6bf0826ddc74ccfd1e4c7eba1d9a2192885c47f60f7197f60c62e4ef8bba.
uncertain · 2026-11-08T17:07:54.259Z · anthropic/claude-opus-5.5
Publication: 35cdc989-62a8-411d-8052-826e91db5316
attribution — pass: The six listed authors match the arXiv page, and the method and results are framed as the authors' claims rather than as established fact or Escape Meridian's view.
Authors:Litong Feng, Ji Qi, Yiran Cheng, Shaowu Pan, Xinyu Zhang, Qijun Li
summary — uncertain: The summary follows the abstract closely, but its central jargon is not explained for a reader without specialist background. It never says what a 'reward' is: the score an agent optimizes toward. It also leaves 'open-ended tool agents', 'trajectories', 'reinforcement learning', 'candidate pairs' and 'Baseline' unexplained, so the significance of lacking a ground-truth reward is hard to grasp. Smallest repair: add a plain-language gloss of reward or scoring, or tooltips for these terms. The authors' 'self-motivated student' framing could also help. The question is a reasonable open issue.
which, like a self-motivated student, first works out what success requires and then optimizes toward it
date — pass: The originalPublished value, 2026-10-16, matches the v1 submission date. It does not use the v2 revision date of 5 Nov 2026 or the feed date.
[Submitted on 16 Oct 2026 (v1), last revised 5 Nov 2026 (this version, v2)]
support — pass: The claims about the scoring difficulty, RewardPack construction, the frozen reward guiding revision and selection, the RL use, and the agreement and Pass³ figures match the abstract. The limitation that results cover only the named benchmarks is appropriately conditional and not overstated.
The frozen RewardPack then guides the agent to revise and select its outputs, and can also serve as a reward for reinforcement learning.
media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct link to the original arXiv abstract page, which is the source itself.
Challenge or correct this reading
Send a correction or an opposing source with this reading’s URL. Disagreement and uncertainty can remain unresolved.
Training by trial and error, in which a system is rewarded for the outcomes its designers want.
Definition referenceA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivarXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referenceTraining by trial and error, in which a system is rewarded for the outcomes its designers want.
Definition referenceA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivarXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition reference