arXiv:2604.04373v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: There is growing interest in improving LLMs without updating model parameters. One well-established direction is test-time scaling, where increased inference-time computation (e.g., longer reasoning, sampling, or search) is used to improve performance. However, for complex reasoning and agentic tasks, naively scaling test-time compute can substantially increase cost and still lead to wasted budget on suboptimal exploration. In this paper, we explore \emph{context} as a complementary scaling axis for improving LLM performance, and systematically study how to construct better inputs that guide reasoning through \emph{experience}. We show that effective context construction critically depends on \emph{decocted experience}. We present a detailed analysis of experience-augmented agents, studying how to derive context from experience, how performance scales with accumulated experience, what characterizes good context, and which data structures best support context construction. We identify \emph{decocted experience} as a key mechanism for effective context construction: extracting essence from experience, organizing it coherently, and retrieving salient information to build effective context. We validate our findings across reasoning and agentic tasks, including math reasoning, web browsing, and software engineering.

arXiv:2604.02368v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit plateauing performance on conventional benchmarks, a pivotal challenge persists: evaluating their proficiency in complex, open-ended tasks characterizing genuine expert-level cognition. Existing frameworks suffer from narrow domain coverage, reliance on generalist tasks, or self-evaluation biases. To bridge this gap, we present XpertBench, a high-fidelity benchmark engineered to assess LLMs across authentic professional domains. XpertBench consists of 1,346 meticulously curated tasks across 80 categories, spanning finance, healthcare, legal services, education, and dual-track research (STEM and Humanities). These tasks are derived from over 1,000 submissions by domain experts--including researchers from elite institutions and practitioners with extensive clinical or industrial experience--ensuring superior ecological validity. Each task uses detailed rubrics with mostly 15-40 weighted checkpoints to assess professional rigor. To facilitate scalable yet human-aligned assessment, we introduce ShotJudge, a novel evaluation paradigm that employs LLM judges calibrated with expert few-shot exemplars to mitigate self-rewarding biases. Our empirical evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs reveals a pronounced performance ceiling: even leading models achieve a peak success rate of only ~66%, with a mean score around 55%. Models also exhibit domain-specific divergence, showing non-overlapping strengths in quantitative reasoning versus linguistic synthesis.. These findings underscore a significant "expert-gap" in current AI systems and establish XpertBench as a critical instrument for navigating the transition from general-purpose assistants to specialized professional collaborators.