LLM Agents Beyond Utility: An Open-Ended Perspective

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.14548
• Title: LLM Agents Beyond Utility: An Open-Ended Perspective
• Authors: Asen Nachkov, Xi Wang, Luc Van Gool
• Institutions: INSAIT, Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski"; ETH Zurich
• Classification: cs.AI
• Conference: 39th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2025) Workshop: CogInterp
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.14548

Abstract

Recent LLM agents have made great use of chain of thought reasoning and function calling. As their capabilities grow, an important question arises: can this software represent not only a smart problem-solving tool, but an entity in its own right, that can plan, design immediate tasks, and reason toward broader, more ambiguous goals? To study this question, we adopt an open-ended experimental setting where we augment a pretrained LLM agent with the ability to generate its own tasks, accumulate knowledge, and interact extensively with its environment. We study the resulting open-ended agent qualitatively. It can reliably follow complex multi-step instructions, store and reuse information across runs, and propose and solve its own tasks, though it remains sensitive to prompt design, prone to repetitive task generation, and unable to form self-representations. These findings illustrate both the promise and current limits of adapting pretrained LLMs toward open-endedness, and point to future directions for training agents to manage memory, explore productively, and pursue abstract long-term goals.

Research Background and Motivation

Core Research Question

This study investigates a fundamental question: Can large language model agents transcend their traditional role as tools and become autonomous entities capable of planning, designing immediate tasks, and reasoning toward broader, more ambiguous goals?

Research Significance

1. Critical Juncture in Agent Evolution: Current LLM agents primarily solve specific tasks through chain-of-thought reasoning and function calling, but remain fundamentally tool-like in nature.
2. Qualitative Leap in Autonomy: Transition from solving predefined tasks to autonomously designing tasks, maintaining persistent existence, and leaving permanent traces in the environment.
3. Exploration of Open-Ended Intelligence: Investigation of agent behavior in environments without fixed termination states, task scopes, or terminal objectives.

Limitations of Existing Approaches

1. Task-Oriented Design: Current agents represent complex but fundamentally task-solving tools.
2. Lack of Persistence: Inability to continue existing and accumulating experience after task completion.
3. Goal Dependency: Inability to autonomously generate and pursue abstract long-term goals.

Research Motivation

The authors argue that open-ended agents require characteristics distinct from current agents, including autonomous exploration, environmental shaping capabilities, and autotelic (self-generated goal) properties.

Core Contributions

1. Proposed an Open-Ended LLM Agent Framework: Extended the ReAct framework with autonomous task generation capabilities.
2. Designed Persistent Interaction Mechanisms: Implemented cross-run knowledge accumulation and state persistence through file I/O tools.
3. Implemented Dual Memory Systems: Distinguished between working memory and episodic memory in agent architecture.
4. Conducted Qualitative Experimental Analysis: Comprehensive evaluation of open-ended agent capabilities and limitations.
5. Provided Future Research Directions: Identified concrete pathways for training truly open-ended agents.

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Open-Ended Agent: An agent capable of autonomous exploration, task generation, and continuous interaction in environments without fixed end states, task scopes, or terminal objectives. Such agents should possess:

• Autonomous goal-setting capabilities
• Cross-run persistence
• Persistent environmental impact
• Ability to pursue abstract goals

Model Architecture

1. Basic Agent Setup

• Base Model: Qwen3-4B pretrained instruction-tuned model
• Framework: ReAct (Reasoning-Acting) agent framework using the smolagents library
• Core Loop: Plan-Act-Observe iterative execution

2. Open-Ended Extension Components

Goal Generation Module:

• Generates goals after receiving user input and before task solving
• Supports task refinement, modification, or complete replacement
• Uses structured <task>...</task> tags for output

Memory Management System:

• Short-term Memory: Buffer storing all interaction messages in the current run
• Long-term Memory: Persistent file system storage accessible on-demand by the agent

Tool Interface:

• File Operations: Read, write, and list functionalities
• Environment Interaction: Working directory inspection, self-source code reading
• Persistence Mechanism: Cross-run state preservation

3. Complete Interaction Loop

1. User input/feedback reception
2. Long-term memory access
3. Task generation (autonomous or user-based)
4-6. ReAct loop (Plan-Act-Observe)
7. Long-term memory update

Technical Innovations

1. Autonomous Goal Generation: First integration of task self-generation capability within the ReAct framework.
2. Dual Memory Architecture: Design mimicking human separation of working and episodic memory.
3. Programmatic Curiosity: Exploration behavior injection through natural language instructions.
4. Environmental Persistence: Complex continuous behavior implementation through simple file operations.

Experimental Setup

Experimental Environment

• Runtime Environment: Agent operates in the working directory of its implementation code
• Interaction Mode: Supports predefined queries and command-line interaction
• Tool Set: Basic file operations, directory listing, etc.

Evaluation Methodology

Qualitative analysis focusing on:

• Task execution capability
• Autonomous behavior performance
• Memory management effectiveness
• Environmental exploration behavior
• Self-awareness capability

Test Scenarios

1. Single-run User Tasks: Evaluating complex instruction execution capability
2. Multi-run Self-Generated Tasks: Evaluating autonomy and persistence
3. Interactive Feedback: Evaluating controllability and adaptability

Experimental Results

Main Findings

Single-Run Performance (User-Provided Tasks)

Strengths:

• File Task Processing: Successfully opens files, reads tasks, solves problems, and writes answers to other files.
• Self-Inspection Capability: Identifies its own prompt template files by listing directories and reading main.py.
• Code Understanding: Locates agent programs, understands user query storage mechanisms, and predicts subsequent queries.

Limitations:

• Poor Ambiguous Task Handling: Frequently fails on deliberately ambiguous tasks.
• Lack of Self-Representation: Cannot recognize source code in the environment as itself; lacks first-person self-awareness.
• Insufficient Exploration: Inadequate deep exploration when understanding ambiguous prompts.

Multi-Run Performance (Self-Generated Tasks)

Task Generation Characteristics:

• Prompt Sensitivity: Generated tasks are extremely sensitive to prompt design, requiring careful prompt engineering.
• Repetition Problem: Prone to repetitive cycles of generating identical tasks.
• Statistical Pattern Dependency: Generated tasks reflect training data statistical patterns (e.g., calculators, password generators, prime number checkers).

Memory Management Issues:

• Storage Omissions: Sometimes forgets to store task completion information, causing repetition.
• Incomplete Information: May store only results without storing tasks themselves.
• User Feedback Loss: Does not proactively store user feedback, resulting in temporary adjustment effects.

Success Case Analysis

The agent demonstrated the following capabilities:

1. Complex Instruction Execution: Reliably follows detailed, step-by-step instructions.
2. Cross-File Operations: Handles tasks involving multiple files and operations.
3. Task Adaptability: Reasonably adjusts generated tasks based on user feedback.

Experimental Insights

Key Findings

1. Limitations of Pretrained Models: Pretrained LLMs lack training for task generation, causing multiple issues.
2. Importance of Memory Management: Long-term memory design directly affects task diversity and continuity.
3. Necessity of Prompt Engineering: Open-ended behavior is highly dependent on carefully designed system prompts.
4. Controllability Preservation: User feedback mechanisms can influence agent task selection.

Related Work

Major Research Directions

1. Autotelic Agents: Goal-conditioned reinforcement learning with intrinsic motivation.
2. Curiosity-Driven Learning: Methods promoting exploration through intrinsic rewards.
3. Intrinsic Motivation: Mechanisms for assigning intrinsic rewards to individual actions.
4. Tool Usage: External function calling and code execution capabilities of LLM agents.

Innovations in This Work

1. Higher-Level Abstraction: Direct generation of complete goals in natural language rather than assigning rewards to individual actions.
2. Persistence Mechanisms: Complex continuous behavior implementation through simple file operations.
3. Practical Feasibility: Practical methods based on existing pretrained models.

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Pretrained LLMs possess foundational capabilities for open-ended agents, but exhibit significant limitations.
2. Current models have fundamental deficiencies in task generation, memory management, and self-representation.
3. Specialized training may address these issues, enabling truly open-ended agents.

Limitations

1. Prompt Sensitivity: Behavior highly dependent on prompt design, lacking robustness.
2. Repetition Problem: Prone to cyclical task generation patterns.
3. Lack of Self-Awareness: Unable to form effective self-representations.
4. Poor Memory Management: Inadequate performance in information storage and retrieval.

Future Directions

1. Specialized Training: Develop training methods for open-ended decision-making.
2. Memory Management: Improve long-term memory design and management strategies.
3. Exploration Strategies: Develop more effective environmental exploration mechanisms.
4. Abstract Goal Pursuit: Train agents to handle more abstract long-term goals.

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Forward-Looking Problem Awareness: Raises important questions about transitioning from tools to autonomous entities.
2. Simple and Effective Methodology: Achieves preliminary open-ended behavior exploration through minimal extensions.
3. Reasonable Experimental Design: Qualitative analysis methods suit exploratory research characteristics.
4. Honest Limitation Analysis: Objectively identifies shortcomings of current approaches.
5. Clear Future Directions: Provides concrete improvement pathways for subsequent research.

Weaknesses

1. Subjective Evaluation Methods: Lacks quantitative metrics, relying primarily on qualitative observation.
2. Limited Experimental Scale: Uses only a single model (Qwen3-4B), lacking broader validation.
3. Weak Theoretical Foundation: Insufficient exposition of theoretical frameworks for open-ended agents.
4. Missing Comparative Experiments: No comparison with other open-ended agent methods.
5. Insufficient Safety Considerations: Inadequate discussion of potential risks from autonomous agents.

Impact

1. Domain Contribution: Opens new research directions for open-ended LLM agents.
2. Practical Value: Provides reproducible foundational frameworks.
3. Research Inspiration: Establishes foundation for subsequent specialized training research.
4. Boundary Recognition: Helps the field understand current technological limitations.

Applicable Scenarios

1. Research Prototype: Suitable as a starting point for open-ended agent research.
2. Educational Tool: Can be used to understand agent autonomy concepts.
3. Foundational Platform: Provides basic infrastructure for more complex open-ended systems.
4. Proof of Concept: Validates feasibility of open-ended agents.

References

This paper cites important works in open-ended learning, autotelic agents, and curiosity-driven learning, including:

• Autotelic agents: Colas et al. (2022) survey on intrinsic motivation goal-conditioned reinforcement learning
• Curiosity-driven learning: Burda et al. (2018) large-scale curiosity-driven learning research
• Tool usage: Qin et al. (2024) survey on tool learning for foundation models
• ReAct framework: Yao et al. (2023) language model framework for reasoning and action synergy
• Voyager: Wang et al. (2023) related work on open-ended embodied agents

Overall Assessment: This is a forward-looking exploratory study that, while limited in technical depth and experimental scale, provides important preliminary exploration and profound insights into the evolution of LLM agents toward open-ended autonomous entities. The paper's value lies more in problem formulation and directional guidance, establishing foundations for subsequent in-depth research.