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:2602.14770v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Prior work has explored multi-turn interaction and feedback for LLM writing, but evaluations still largely center on prompts and localized feedback, leaving persistent public reception in online communities underexamined. We test whether broadcast community discussion improves stand-up comedy writing in a controlled multi-agent sandbox: in the discussion condition, critic and audience threads are recorded, filtered, stored as social memory, and later retrieved to condition subsequent generations, whereas the baseline omits discussion. Across 50 rounds (250 paired monologues) judged by five expert annotators using A/B preference and a 15-item rubric, discussion wins 75.6% of instances and improves Craft/Clarity ({\Delta} = 0.440) and Social Response ({\Delta} = 0.422), with occasional increases in aggressive humor.