PREPING: Building Agent Memory without Tasks

TL;DR

Preping introduces a proposer-guided framework for constructing agent memory using synthetic practice before task exposure, significantly reducing deployment costs and improving performance.

Contribution

It presents a novel structured control approach for pre-task memory building, addressing the limitations of synthetic interaction and enhancing agent preparedness.

Findings

Preping outperforms no-memory baselines in multiple environments.

Achieves performance comparable to offline/online methods at lower costs.

Proposer control over practice quality is key to effectiveness.

Abstract

Agent memory is typically constructed either offline from curated demonstrations or online from post-deployment interactions. However, regardless of how it is built, an agent faces a cold-start gap when first introduced to a new environment without any task-specific experience available. In this paper, we study pre-task memory construction: whether an agent can build procedural memory before observing any target-environment tasks, using only self-generated synthetic practice. Yet, synthetic interaction alone is insufficient, as without controlling what to practice and what to store, synthetic tasks become redundant, infeasible, and ultimately uninformative, and memory further degrades quickly due to unfiltered trajectories. To overcome this, we present Preping, a proposer-guided memory construction framework. At its core is proposer memory, a structured control state that shapes future practice. A Proposer generates synthetic tasks conditioned on this state, a Solver executes them, and a Validator determines which trajectories are eligible for memory insertion while also providing feedback to guide future proposals. Experiments on AppWorld, BFCL v3, and MCP-Universe show that Preping substantially improves over a no-memory baseline and achieves performance competitive with strong playbook-based methods built from offline or online experience, with deployment cost $2.99\times$ lower on AppWorld and $2.23\times$ lower on BFCL v3 than online memory construction. Further analyses reveal that the main benefit does not come from synthetic volume alone, but from proposer-side control over feasibility, redundancy, and coverage, combined with selective memory updates.