Large Language Models (LLMs) have made strong progress in reasoning. To enhance the reasoning performance, a common inference-time approach is tree-based search, which decomposes the reasoning process into multiple steps, expands multiple reasoning paths, and uses reward models to prune and select candidates. However, based on our exploration, the simple decomposition may lead to suboptimal searching efficiency: while planning is generally harder, it is the execution errors that are more likely to propagate to later steps. This indicates that planning and execution play different roles in reasoning and should be treated differently during tree-based search. Given this, to enhance the searching efficiency, we propose a dual-phase test-time scaling framework that separates reasoning into planning and execution, and performs search over each phase independently. To further refine the algorithm, we also introduce a dynamic budget allocation mechanism that adaptively redistributes sampling effort based on reward feedback, allowing early stopping on confident steps and reallocation of computation to more challenging steps. Experiments on both math reasoning and code generation benchmarks demonstrate that our approach consistently improves accuracy while reducing redundant computation.

Learning from experience is critical for developing capable, self-improving large language model (LLM) agents. Existing methods typically extract knowledge from accumulated trajectories via reflection, memory, rules, or skills. However, agents in realistic environments continuously encounter novel tasks, often offering only a one-shot opportunity to improve. These executions yield rich but highly noisy contexts, entangling broadly useful lessons with task-specific artifacts. Critically, prior works rarely validate their effectiveness on complex real-world tasks or isolate the underlying drivers of improvement. To address these gaps, we study online harness learning, where a frozen agent improves by continually updating a structured harness across sequential tasks. This setup enables a systematic study of key self-improvement factors through our proposed Evo-Harness. At its core, context-to-harness skill compilation distills noisy, single-shot executions into reusable skill harnesses for cross-domain and topic-level adaptation. To demonstrate the efficacy of one-shot skill compilation, we evaluate across five realistic benchmarks (TerminalBench2, SWE-bench, CL-Bench, 𝜏-bench, WebArena-Infinity). Our extensive analysis demonstrates the effectiveness of Evo-Harness and provides a principled understanding of how LLM agents can effectively learn on the fly. Our code is available at https://github.com/A-EVO-Lab/a-evolve/tree/release/evo-harness.

LLM agents are increasingly deployed as systems built around editable external harnesses, including prompts, skills, memories and tools, that shape task execution without changing model parameters. Harness self-evolution adapts such agents by updating these harnesses from execution evidence. Yet it remains unclear whether a model’s base capability in task-solving predicts its capabilities in harness self-evolution: which models produce useful harness updates, and which actually benefit from them? We analyze two harness self-evolution capabilities: (i) harness-updating, the capability to produce useful persistent harness updates from execution evidence; (ii) harness-benefit, the capability to benefit from updated harnesses during task solving. Our analysis reveals two findings. First, harness-updating is flat in base capability: models from different capability tiers produce harness updates that lead to surprisingly similar gains; even Qwen3.5-9B’s updates yields gains comparable to those of Claude Opus 4.6. Second, harness-benefit is non-monotonic in base capability: weak-tier models benefit little from updated harnesses, mid-tier models benefit most, and strong-tier models benefit less than mid-tier. We trace low gains at the weak tier to two failure modes: weak-tier models may fail to activate relevant harness artifacts, or activate them but fail to follow them faithfully. These findings suggest investing capability budget in the task-solving agent rather than the evolver, and targeting harness invocation and long-horizon instruction following in agent training. Our source code is publicly available at https://github.com/A-EVO-Lab/a-evolve/tree/release/harness-evolution.

Enterprise analytics agents solve long-horizon tool-use problems over distributed business data, requiring retrieval, reasoning, API calls, code execution, and adaptation to intermediate observations. Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) calibrates tool syntax and teacher-supported behavior, whereas reinforcement learning (RL) can explore reward-supported behaviors beyond demonstrations; applied uniformly, however, RL can perturb already-calibrated skills. We study how to balance SFT and RL under production-mirroring beta APIs. We observe that, in our controlled experiment, checkpoint trajectories retrospectively separated into three regimes: Imitation, where SFT captured reliable teacher behavior; Lift, where both stages helped; and Discovery, where useful reward-observable behavior lay outside reliable teacher support. We leverage this prospectively, using teacher support and reward-observable headroom to route features to SFT only, SFT→RL, increased RL allocation, or further environment development. Across 18 subsequent feature-specific experiments, the diagnostic predicted 15/18 observed trajectories. On GPT-OSS 120B, targeted SFT→RL produced positive point estimates on 7/8 advertiser skills relative to a frontier Control; five positive gains had paired 95% confidence intervals excluding zero, while one skill had a confidence-supported regression. The largest gain was non-disclosure (+11.27 points; 95% CI [+9.72, +12.82]). A separate SME audit surfaced that targeted RL reduces standard leakage from 11.8% to 2.9% and adversarial leakage from 22.9% to 6.8% relative to SFT while preserving actionability (86.2% to 85.7%). In a matched uniform-versus-targeted comparison with shared rewards and optimization, targeted RL improved the seven-skill mean delta from +1.62 to +3.57 while using 43% less incremental RL compute.