Qingyun Wu

Yaolun Zhang, Yiran Wu, Yijiong Yu et al.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly equipped with memory, which are stored experience and reusable guidance that can improve task-solving performance. Recent \emph{self-evolving} systems update memory based on interaction outcomes, but most existing evolution pipelines are developed for static train/test splits and only approximate online learning by folding static benchmarks, making them brittle under true distribution shift and continuous feedback. We introduce \textsc{Live-Evo}, an online self-evolving memory system that learns from a stream of incoming data over time. \textsc{Live-Evo} decouples \emph{what happened} from \emph{how to use it} via an Experience Bank and a Meta-Guideline Bank, compiling task-adaptive guidelines from retrieved experiences for each task. To manage memory online, \textsc{Live-Evo} maintains experience weights and updates them from feedback: experiences that consistently help are reinforced and retrieved more often, while misleading or stale experiences are down-weighted and gradually forgotten, analogous to reinforcement and decay in human memory. On the live \textit{Prophet Arena} benchmark over a 10-week horizon, \textsc{Live-Evo} improves Brier score by 20.8\% and increases market returns by 12.9\%, while also transferring to deep-research benchmarks with consistent gains over strong baselines. Our code is available at https://github.com/ag2ai/Live-Evo.

Chi Zhang, Wenxuan Ding, Jiale Liu et al.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have shown strong multimodal reasoning capabilities on Visual-Question-Answering (VQA) benchmarks. However, their robustness against textual misinformation remains under-explored. While existing research has studied the effect of misinformation in text-only domains, it is not clear how VLMs arbitrate between contradictory information from different modalities. To bridge the gap, we first propose the CONTEXT-VQA (i.e., Conflicting Text) dataset, consisting of image-question pairs together with systematically generated persuasive prompts that deliberately conflict with visual evidence. Then, a thorough evaluation framework is designed and executed to benchmark the susceptibility of various models to these conflicting multimodal inputs. Comprehensive experiments over 11 state-of-the-art VLMs reveal that these models are indeed vulnerable to misleading textual prompts, often overriding clear visual evidence in favor of the conflicting text, and show an average performance drop of over 48.2% after only one round of persuasive conversation. Our findings highlight a critical limitation in current VLMs and underscore the need for improved robustness against textual manipulation.