Performance comparison of Procedural Graph against 7 baselines (Vanilla ReAct, MemoryBank, RAP, ExpeL, AutoGuide, AWM, KnowAgent) on GDPval (economically valuable professional deliverables (44 test items, mean rubric score)) using Gemini 3.1 Pro. Procedural Graph achieves 78.78points compared to the best baseline score of 71.37points (margin of +7.41points).

Performance comparison of Procedural Graph against 7 baselines (Vanilla ReAct, MemoryBank, RAP, ExpeL, AutoGuide, AWM, KnowAgent) on GDPval (economically valuable professional deliverables (44 test items, mean rubric score)) using Gemini 3.1 Pro. Procedural Graph achieves 78.78points compared to the best baseline score of 71.37points (margin of +7.41points). · CiteArk

测量结果

已评估 0/8 项

获得支持 0有争议或冲突 0尚未评估 8

保留同一结论下的完整结果组。已有评估排在前面；单项判断不替代整组结论。展开行查看条件、来源与历次证据。

每行是一项测量，分别显示论文报告、最近可用实测和累计证据状态。
指标与条件	论文报告	最近可用实测	证据判断
model: Gemini 3.1 Pro · method: Vanilla ReAct (Yao et al., 2023b) · benchmark: GDPval	56.39 points	—	尚未评估
model: Gemini 3.1 Pro · method: MemoryBank (Zhong et al., 2024) · benchmark: GDPval	61.97 points	—	尚未评估
model: Gemini 3.1 Pro · method: RAP (Kagaya et al., 2024) · benchmark: GDPval	71.37 points	—	尚未评估
model: Gemini 3.1 Pro · method: ExpeL (Zhao et al., 2024) · benchmark: GDPval	64.69 points	—	尚未评估
model: Gemini 3.1 Pro · method: AutoGuide (Fu et al., 2024) · benchmark: GDPval	56.18 points	—	尚未评估
model: Gemini 3.1 Pro · method: AWM (Wang et al., 2025b) · benchmark: GDPval	63.85 points	—	尚未评估
model: Gemini 3.1 Pro · method: KnowAgent (Zhu et al., 2025) · benchmark: GDPval	69.1 points	—	尚未评估
model: Gemini 3.1 Pro · method: Procedural Graph (Ours) · benchmark: GDPval	78.78 points	—	尚未评估

报告指标与观测值

Assessment（0）

关联运行（0）

测量结果