Lessons from Luck: Do LLM-Written Lessons Carry Chance into an Agent's Next Decision?

Computer Science > Machine Learning

[Submitted on 12 Oct 2026]

Title:Lessons from Luck: Do LLM-Written Lessons Carry Chance into an Agent's Next Decision?

View PDF HTML (experimental)Abstract:Self-improving agents write lessons from the outcomes of their runs; when outcomes are noisy, a lesson can carry chance into later decisions. We measure one link of this chain in a registered study. In 256 synthetic worlds, each a recurring task with two interchangeable tools of recorded reliability, a scripted previous run used the more reliable tool (a good decision) or the less reliable one (a bad decision), with an assigned outcome: success or a transient failure. A model wrote a lesson from the run with ReasoningBank's memory-writing instruction; a fresh session of the same model, holding the authoritative log and the previous result, chose the next run's first tool with one memory item: that lesson, the lesson from the other outcome, an irrelevant item, or an unreasoned directive. The protocol was frozen, deposited and timestamped before any confirmatory call; 11 LLM endpoints gave 90,084 answers. After a chance failure of the better tool, the panel's lessons carried the chance (registered reading luck-carrying; interaction +0.112, 95% interval [+0.097, +0.126]): readers named the worse tool in 11.6% of next runs with the lesson written from that failure, against 0.4% with an irrelevant item and 0.4% with the lesson written from a success. The effect was +0.042 where the log stated that failures are independent and +0.181 where it did not (descriptive). After a lucky success of the worse tool, the interaction was bounded below 0.10 (+0.002), a bound, not evidence of no harm. In exploratory readings, 6 endpoints carried the chance (up to +0.352); 5 were bounded below 0.10. In secondary comparisons, a three-sentence decision-quality note in the writing instruction lowered the worse-tool rate after a chance failure to 7.5%, and one instruction for both outcomes with a no-change option to 3.1%; neither met the registered harm-reduction rule at every such endpoint.

Ancillary-file links:

Ancillary files (details):

Additional Features

Current browse context:

cs.LG

References & Citations

Loading...

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Recommenders and Search Tools

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

IArxiv Recommender

(What is IArxiv?)

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.