Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 23, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled agents to tackle long-horizon tasks across diverse environments. To further improve agent performance, existing language world models typically predict environment observations, yet reconstructing high-entropy, execution-dependent tool responses offers limited value when real feedback is available. Meanwhile, agents suffer from \emph{task-state contamination}, where unsupported assumptions and outdated plans persist in history and distort subsequent decisions. We propose the \textbf{Agent-Editing World Model (AEWM)}, which models how reasoning and actions shape future task progress rather than simulating tool responses. AEWM combines \textbf{Action Judge} to distinguish \textsc{Critical}, \textsc{Exploratory}, and \textsc{Noisy} decisions with \textbf{State Revision} to edit noisy reasoning--action continuations from the same observed history. \textbf{EditAct} integrates these capabilities with real execution, directly changing the state underlying subsequent decisions rather than merely providing critiques. We train AEWM across Search, Terminal, and Software Engineering through mid-training and supervised fine-tuning. AEWM achieves 70.5\% macro-F1 on our Action Judge benchmark, exceeding the strongest frontier baseline by 10.6 points. Across six benchmarks and three agent backbones, EditAct improves average scores by 3.2--6.7 points over the strongest baseline. Furthermore, rejection sampling fine-tuning on verified EditAct trajectories, termed \textbf{AEWM-RFT}, improves over Self-RFT by 2.2--2.6 points across three domains without online AEWM guidance.