Procedural Memory Is Not All You Need: Bridging Cognitive Gaps in LLM-Based Agents

Large Language Models (LLMs) represent a landmark achievement in Artificial Intelligence (AI), demonstrating unprecedented proficiency in procedural tasks such as text generation, code completion, and conversational coherence. These capabilities stem from their architecture, which mirrors human procedural memory -- the brain's ability to automate repetitive, pattern-driven tasks through practice. However, as LLMs are increasingly deployed in real-world applications, it becomes impossible to ignore their limitations operating in complex, unpredictable environments. This paper argues that LLMs, while transformative, are fundamentally constrained by their reliance on procedural memory. To create agents capable of navigating ``wicked'' learning environments -- where rules shift, feedback is ambiguous, and novelty is the norm -- we must augment LLMs with semantic memory and associative learning systems. By adopting a modular architecture that decouples these cognitive functions, we can bridge the gap between narrow procedural expertise and the adaptive intelligence required for real-world problem-solving.

Validation of massively-parallel adaptive testing using dynamic control matching

A/B testing is a widely-used paradigm within marketing optimization because it promises identification of causal effects and because it is implemented out of the box in most messaging delivery software platforms. Modern businesses, however, often run many A/B/n tests at the same time and in parallel, and package many content variations into the same messages, not all of which are part of an explicit test. Whether as the result of many teams testing at the same time, or as part of a more sophisticated reinforcement learning (RL) approach that continuously adapts tests and test condition assignment based on previous results, dynamic parallel testing cannot be evaluated the same way traditional A/B tests are evaluated. This paper presents a method for disentangling the causal effects of the various tests under conditions of continuous test adaptation, using a matched-synthetic control group that adapts alongside the tests.