arXiv:2512.16301v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are moving beyond prompting alone. ChatGPT marked the rise of general-purpose LLM assistants, DeepSeek showed that on-policy reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards can improve reasoning and tool use, and OpenClaw highlights a newer direction in which agents accumulate persistent memory and reusable skills. Yet the research landscape remains fragmented across post-training, retrieval, memory, and skill systems. This survey studies these developments under a single notion of \emph{adaptation}: improving an agent, its tools, or their interaction after pretraining. We organize the field with a four-paradigm framework spanning agent adaptation and tool adaptation. On the agent side, A1 (tool-execution-signaled) and A2 (agent-output-signaled) improve the agent itself through supervised fine-tuning, preference optimization, and reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. On the tool side, T1 (agent-agnostic) provides reusable pre-trained modules any agent can call, while T2 (agent-supervised) uses the agent's outputs to train memory systems, skill libraries, or lightweight subagents. Using this framework, we review post-training methods, adaptive memory architectures, and agent skills; compare their trade-offs in cost, flexibility, and generalization; and summarize evaluation practices across deep research, software development, computer use, and drug discovery. We conclude by outlining open problems in agent-tool co-adaptation, continual learning, safety, and efficient deployment.

arXiv:2511.02872v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in formal theorem proving, particularly on contest-based mathematical benchmarks like the IMO. However, these contests do not reflect the depth, breadth, and abstraction of modern mathematical research. To bridge this gap, we introduce FATE (Formal Algebra Theorem Evaluation), a new benchmark series in formal algebra designed to chart a course toward advanced mathematical reasoning. We present two new components, FATE-H and FATE-X, each with 100 problems in abstract and commutative algebra. The FATE series spans a difficulty spectrum from undergraduate exercises to problems exceeding PhD qualifying exams. Notably, FATE-X is the first formal benchmark to surpass both PhD-level exam difficulty and the coverage of the Mathlib library. Our evaluations of state-of-the-art LLM provers on this new benchmark reveal a stark performance gap compared to contest math: the best model achieves only 3% (pass@64) accuracy on FATE-H and 0% on FATE-X. Our two-stage evaluation reveals that models' natural-language reasoning is notably more accurate than their ability to formalize this reasoning. We systematically classify the common errors that arise during this formalization process. Furthermore, a comparative study shows that a specialized prover can exhibit less effective reflection than general-purpose models, reducing its accuracy at the natural-language stage. We believe FATE provides a robust and challenging benchmark that establishes essential checkpoints on the path toward research-level formal mathematical reasoning.