\bibitem[Azar et~al.(2024)Azar, Guo, Piot, Munos, Rowland, Valko, and Calandriello]{azar:2024general}
Mohammad~Gheshlaghi Azar, Zhaohan~Daniel Guo, Bilal Piot, R{\'{e}}mi Munos, Mark Rowland, Michal Valko, and Daniele Calandriello.
\newblock A general theoretical paradigm to understand learning from human preferences.
\newblock In Sanjoy Dasgupta, Stephan Mandt, and Yingzhen Li (eds.), \emph{International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2-4 May 2024, Palau de Congressos, Valencia, Spain}, volume 238 of \emph{Proceedings of Machine Learning Research}, pp.\ 4447--4455. {PMLR}, 2024.
\bibitem[Bahdanau et~al.(2017)Bahdanau, Brakel, Xu, Goyal, Lowe, Pineau, Courville, and Bengio]{bahdanau-etal:2016actor}
Dzmitry Bahdanau, Philemon Brakel, Kelvin Xu, Anirudh Goyal, Ryan Lowe, Joelle Pineau, Aaron~C. Courville, and Yoshua Bengio.
\newblock An actor-critic algorithm for sequence prediction.
\newblock In \emph{5th International Conference on Learning Representations, {ICLR} 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings}. OpenReview.net, 2017.
Lichang Chen, Shiyang Li, Jun Yan, Hai Wang, Kalpa Gunaratna, Vikas Yadav, Zheng Tang, Vijay Srinivasan, Tianyi Zhou, Heng Huang, and Hongxia Jin.
\newblock Alpagasus: Training a better alpaca with fewer data.
\newblock In \emph{The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, {ICLR} 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024}. OpenReview.net, 2024.
\bibitem[Christiano et~al.(2017)Christiano, Leike, Brown, Martic, Legg, and Amodei]{christiano-etal:2017deep}
Paul~F. Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom~B. Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei.
\newblock Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences.
\newblock In Isabelle Guyon, Ulrike von Luxburg, Samy Bengio, Hanna~M. Wallach, Rob Fergus, S.~V.~N. Vishwanathan, and Roman Garnett (eds.), \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, {USA}}, pp.\ 4299--4307, 2017.
\bibitem[Coste et~al.(2024)Coste, Anwar, Kirk, and Krueger]{coste-etal:2024reward}
Thomas Coste, Usman Anwar, Robert Kirk, and David Krueger.
\newblock Reward model ensembles help mitigate overoptimization.
\newblock In \emph{The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, {ICLR} 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024}. OpenReview.net, 2024.
\newblock {ULTRAFEEDBACK:} boosting language models with scaled {AI} feedback.
\newblock In \emph{Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, {ICML} 2024, Vienna, Austria, July 21-27, 2024}. OpenReview.net, 2024{\natexlab{a}}.
\newblock {ULTRAFEEDBACK:} boosting language models with scaled {AI} feedback.
\newblock In \emph{Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, {ICML} 2024, Vienna, Austria, July 21-27, 2024}. OpenReview.net, 2024{\natexlab{b}}.
Yann Dubois, Chen~Xuechen Li, Rohan Taori, Tianyi Zhang, Ishaan Gulrajani, Jimmy Ba, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori~B. Hashimoto.
\newblock Alpacafarm: {A} simulation framework for methods that learn from human feedback.
\newblock In Alice Oh, Tristan Naumann, Amir Globerson, Kate Saenko, Moritz Hardt, and Sergey Levine (eds.), \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, December 10 - 16, 2023}, 2023.
Jacob Eisenstein, Chirag Nagpal, Alekh Agarwal, Ahmad Beirami, Alex D'Amour, DJ~Dvijotham, Adam Fisch, Katherine Heller, Stephen Pfohl, Deepak Ramachandran, et~al.
\newblock Helping or herding? reward model ensembles mitigate but do not eliminate reward hacking.
\bibitem[Gao et~al.(2023)Gao, Schulman, and Hilton]{gao-etal:2023scaling}
Leo Gao, John Schulman, and Jacob Hilton.
\newblock Scaling laws for reward model overoptimization.
\newblock In Andreas Krause, Emma Brunskill, Kyunghyun Cho, Barbara Engelhardt, Sivan Sabato, and Jonathan Scarlett (eds.), \emph{International Conference on Machine Learning, {ICML} 2023, 23-29 July 2023, Honolulu, Hawaii, {USA}}, volume 202 of \emph{Proceedings of Machine Learning Research}, pp.\ 10835--10866. {PMLR}, 2023.
\bibitem[Havrilla et~al.(2024)Havrilla, Du, Raparthy, Nalmpantis, Dwivedi-Yu, Zhuravinskyi, Hambro, Sukhbaatar, and Raileanu]{havrilla-etal:2024teaching}
Alex Havrilla, Yuqing Du, Sharath~Chandra Raparthy, Christoforos Nalmpantis, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Maksym Zhuravinskyi, Eric Hambro, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, and Roberta Raileanu.
\newblock Teaching large language models to reason with reinforcement learning.
\bibitem[Li et~al.(2025{\natexlab{b}})Li, Hu, and Wang]{li-etal:encouraging}
Zhiwei Li, Yong Hu, and Wenqing Wang.
\newblock Encouraging good processes without the need for good answers: Reinforcement learning for llm agent planning.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Industry Track}, pp.\ 1654--1666, 2025{\natexlab{b}}.
\bibitem[Li et~al.(2024)Li, Xu, Zhang, Lin, Yu, Sun, and Luo]{li-etal:2023remax}
Ziniu Li, Tian Xu, Yushun Zhang, Zhihang Lin, Yang Yu, Ruoyu Sun, and Zhi{-}Quan Luo.
\newblock Remax: {A} simple, effective, and efficient reinforcement learning method for aligning large language models.
\newblock In \emph{Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, {ICML} 2024, Vienna, Austria, July 21-27, 2024}. OpenReview.net, 2024.
Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe.
\newblock Let's verify step by step.
\newblock In \emph{The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, {ICLR} 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024}. OpenReview.net, 2024{\natexlab{a}}.
Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe.
\newblock Let's verify step by step.
\newblock In \emph{The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, {ICLR} 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024}. OpenReview.net, 2024{\natexlab{b}}.
\bibitem[Liu et~al.(2023)Liu, Iter, Xu, Wang, Xu, and Zhu]{liu-etal:2023GEval}
Yang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang, Ruochen Xu, and Chenguang Zhu.
\newblock {G}-eval: {NLG} evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment.
\newblock In Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali (eds.), \emph{Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing}, pp.\ 2511--2522, Singapore, 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics.
\bibitem[Meng et~al.(2024)Meng, Xia, and Chen]{meng:2025simpo}
Yu~Meng, Mengzhou Xia, and Danqi Chen.
\newblock Simpo: Simple preference optimization with a reference-free reward.
\newblock In Amir Globersons, Lester Mackey, Danielle Belgrave, Angela Fan, Ulrich Paquet, Jakub~M. Tomczak, and Cheng Zhang (eds.), \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2024, NeurIPS 2024, Vancouver, BC, Canada, December 10 - 15, 2024}, 2024.
\bibitem[Mnih et~al.(2016)Mnih, Badia, Mirza, Graves, Lillicrap, Harley, Silver, and Kavukcuoglu]{mnih-etal:2016asynchronous}
Volodymyr Mnih, Adri{\`{a}}~Puigdom{\`{e}}nech Badia, Mehdi Mirza, Alex Graves, Timothy~P. Lillicrap, Tim Harley, David Silver, and Koray Kavukcuoglu.
\newblock Asynchronous methods for deep reinforcement learning.
\newblock In Maria{-}Florina Balcan and Kilian~Q. Weinberger (eds.), \emph{Proceedings of the 33nd International Conference on Machine Learning, {ICML} 2016, New York City, NY, USA, June 19-24, 2016}, volume~48 of \emph{{JMLR} Workshop and Conference Proceedings}, pp.\ 1928--1937. JMLR.org, 2016.
\bibitem[Nakano et~al.(2021)Nakano, Hilton, Balaji, Wu, Ouyang, Kim, Hesse, Jain, Kosaraju, Saunders, Jiang, Cobbe, Eloundou, Krueger, Button, Knight, Chess, and Schulman]{nakano-etal:2021webgpt}
Reiichiro Nakano, Jacob Hilton, Suchir Balaji, Jeff Wu, Long Ouyang, Christina Kim, Christopher Hesse, Shantanu Jain, Vineet Kosaraju, William Saunders, Xu~Jiang, Karl Cobbe, Tyna Eloundou, Gretchen Krueger, Kevin Button, Matthew Knight, Benjamin Chess, and John Schulman.
\newblock Webgpt: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback.
Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu~Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll~L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul~F. Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe.
\newblock Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback.
\newblock In Sanmi Koyejo, S.~Mohamed, A.~Agarwal, Danielle Belgrave, K.~Cho, and A.~Oh (eds.), \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2022, NeurIPS 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, November 28 - December 9, 2022}, 2022.
\newblock \emph{Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems}, 5:\penalty0 606--624, 2023.
\bibitem[Radford et~al.(2021)Radford, Kim, Hallacy, Ramesh, Goh, Agarwal, Sastry, Askell, Mishkin, Clark, Krueger, and Sutskever]{radford-etal:2021learning}
Alec Radford, Jong~Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever.
\newblock Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision, 2021.
\bibitem[Rafailov et~al.(2023)Rafailov, Sharma, Mitchell, Manning, Ermon, and Finn]{rafailov:2023direct}
Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher~D. Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn.
\newblock Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model.
\newblock In Alice Oh, Tristan Naumann, Amir Globerson, Kate Saenko, Moritz Hardt, and Sergey Levine (eds.), \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, December 10 - 16, 2023}, 2023.
\bibitem[Schulman et~al.(2015)Schulman, Levine, Abbeel, Jordan, and Moritz]{schulman-etal:2015trust}
John Schulman, Sergey Levine, Pieter Abbeel, Michael~I. Jordan, and Philipp Moritz.
\newblock Trust region policy optimization.
\newblock In Francis~R. Bach and David~M. Blei (eds.), \emph{Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, {ICML} 2015, Lille, France, 6-11 July 2015}, volume~37 of \emph{{JMLR} Workshop and Conference Proceedings}, pp.\ 1889--1897. JMLR.org, 2015.
\bibitem[Schulman et~al.(2016)Schulman, Moritz, Levine, Jordan, and Abbeel]{schulman-etal:2015high}
John Schulman, Philipp Moritz, Sergey Levine, Michael~I. Jordan, and Pieter Abbeel.
\newblock High-dimensional continuous control using generalized advantage estimation.
\newblock In Yoshua Bengio and Yann LeCun (eds.), \emph{4th International Conference on Learning Representations, {ICLR} 2016, San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 2-4, 2016, Conference Track Proceedings}, 2016.
David Silver, Aja Huang, Chris~J Maddison, Arthur Guez, Laurent Sifre, George Van Den~Driessche, Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Veda Panneershelvam, Marc Lanctot, et~al.
\newblock Mastering the game of go with deep neural networks and tree search.
David Silver, Julian Schrittwieser, Karen Simonyan, Ioannis Antonoglou, Aja Huang, Arthur Guez, Thomas Hubert, Lucas Baker, Matthew Lai, Adrian Bolton, et~al.
\newblock Mastering the game of go without human knowledge.
\bibitem[Sun et~al.(2024)Sun, Liu, Bair, and Kolter]{sun-etal:2023simple}
Mingjie Sun, Zhuang Liu, Anna Bair, and J.~Zico Kolter.
\newblock A simple and effective pruning approach for large language models.
\newblock In \emph{The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, {ICLR} 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024}. OpenReview.net, 2024.
\bibitem[Wang et~al.(2021)Wang, Yan, Meng, and Zhou]{wang-etal:2021selective}
Fusheng Wang, Jianhao Yan, Fandong Meng, and Jie Zhou.
\newblock Selective knowledge distillation for neural machine translation.
\newblock In Chengqing Zong, Fei Xia, Wenjie Li, and Roberto Navigli (eds.), \emph{Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers)}, pp.\ 6456--6466, Online, 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics.
\bibitem[Wang \& Zhou(2024)Wang and Zhou]{wang-and-zhou:2024chain}
Xuezhi Wang and Denny Zhou.
\newblock Chain-of-thought reasoning without prompting.
\newblock In Amir Globersons, Lester Mackey, Danielle Belgrave, Angela Fan, Ulrich Paquet, Jakub~M. Tomczak, and Cheng Zhang (eds.), \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2024, NeurIPS 2024, Vancouver, BC, Canada, December 10 - 15, 2024}, 2024.
Yizhong Wang, Hamish Ivison, Pradeep Dasigi, Jack Hessel, Tushar Khot, Khyathi Chandu, David Wadden, Kelsey MacMillan, Noah~A. Smith, Iz~Beltagy, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi.
\newblock How far can camels go? exploring the state of instruction tuning on open resources.
\newblock In Alice Oh, Tristan Naumann, Amir Globerson, Kate Saenko, Moritz Hardt, and Sergey Levine (eds.), \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, December 10 - 16, 2023}, 2023{\natexlab{d}}.
\bibitem[Wei et~al.(2022)Wei, Bosma, Zhao, Guu, Yu, Lester, Du, Dai, and Le]{wei-etal:2022finetuned}
Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent~Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams~Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew~M. Dai, and Quoc~V. Le.
\newblock Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners.
\newblock In \emph{The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, {ICLR} 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022}. OpenReview.net, 2022.
Zeqiu Wu, Yushi Hu, Weijia Shi, Nouha Dziri, Alane Suhr, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, Noah~A. Smith, Mari Ostendorf, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi.
\newblock Fine-grained human feedback gives better rewards for language model training.
\newblock In Alice Oh, Tristan Naumann, Amir Globerson, Kate Saenko, Moritz Hardt, and Sergey Levine (eds.), \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, December 10 - 16, 2023}, 2023.
\newblock Regularizing hidden states enables learning generalizable reward model for llms.
\newblock In Amir Globersons, Lester Mackey, Danielle Belgrave, Angela Fan, Ulrich Paquet, Jakub~M. Tomczak, and Cheng Zhang (eds.), \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2024, NeurIPS 2024, Vancouver, BC, Canada, December 10 - 15, 2024}, 2024.
\bibitem[Yao et~al.(2023)Yao, Yu, Zhao, Shafran, Griffiths, Cao, and Narasimhan]{yao-etal:2023tree}
Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Tom Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan.
\newblock Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models.
\newblock In Alice Oh, Tristan Naumann, Amir Globerson, Kate Saenko, Moritz Hardt, and Sergey Levine (eds.), \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, December 10 - 16, 2023}, 2023.
\newblock Agent lumos: Unified and modular training for open-source language agents.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)}, pp.\ 12380--12403, 2024.
\newblock Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena.
\newblock In Alice Oh, Tristan Naumann, Amir Globerson, Kate Saenko, Moritz Hardt, and Sergey Levine (eds.), \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, December 10 - 16, 2023}, 2023.
title={Toolrl: Reward is all tool learning needs},
author={Qian, Cheng and Acikgoz, Emre Can and He, Qi and Wang, Hongru and Chen, Xiusi and Hakkani-Tur, Dilek and Tur, Gokhan and Ji, Heng},
journal={Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems},
volume={38},
pages={105523--105553},
year={2026}
}
@article{schick-etal:toolformer,
title={Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools},
author={Schick, Timo and Dwivedi-Yu, Jane and Dess{\`\i}, Roberto and Raileanu, Roberta and Lomeli, Maria and Hambro, Eric and Zettlemoyer, Luke and Cancedda, Nicola and Scialom, Thomas},
journal={Advances in neural information processing systems},
volume={36},
pages={68539--68551},
year={2023}
}
@article{yao-etal:react,
title={React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models},
author={Yao, Shunyu and Zhao, Jeffrey and Yu, Dian and Du, Nan and Shafran, Izhak and Narasimhan, Karthik and Cao, Yuan},
journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629},
year={2022}
}
@article{wang-etal:steppo,
@article{wang-etal:steppo,
title={StepPO: Step-Aligned Policy Optimization for Agentic Reinforcement Learning},
title={StepPO: Step-Aligned Policy Optimization for Agentic Reinforcement Learning},
author={Wang, Daoyu and Li, Qingchuan and Cheng, Mingyue and Ouyang, Jie and Yu, Shuo and Liu, Qi and Chen, Enhong},
author={Wang, Daoyu and Li, Qingchuan and Cheng, Mingyue and Ouyang, Jie and Yu, Shuo and Liu, Qi and Chen, Enhong},
@@ -13,11 +13,11 @@ In this section, we focus on the emerging paradigm of agentic RL for LLM-based a
...
@@ -13,11 +13,11 @@ In this section, we focus on the emerging paradigm of agentic RL for LLM-based a
\subsection{Building Agent Capabilities}
\subsection{Building Agent Capabilities}
One feature of LLM-based agents is their capacity to interpret user instructions, autonomously formulate a step-by-step plan to resolve the given task, and systematically execute those steps. In applications, this planning process inherently involves coordinating interactions with external environments and determining appropriate tool use. The agent then relies on this structured plan as a blueprint to guide its execution trajectory over multiple turns.
One feature of LLM-based agents is their capacity to interpret user instructions, autonomously formulate a step-by-step plan to resolve the given task, and systematically execute those steps. In applications, this planning process inherently involves coordinating interactions with external environments and determining appropriate tool using. The agent then relies on this structured plan as a blueprint to guide its execution trajectory over multiple turns.
To accomplish this process, an LLM-based agent relies on several complementary capabilities. Some of these capabilities are already inherited from LLMs. Recent advances in large-scale pretraining and post-training have significantly improved LLMs in instruction following, reasoning, code generation, and general world knowledge. These capabilities provide a strong foundation for agentic behavior, enabling LLMs to understand complex user requests and generate coherent intermediate reasoning steps without explicit interaction with the real-world environment. The rapid improvement of these intrinsic capabilities has been a key factor driving the emergence of LLM-based agents, making it increasingly feasible for a single model to serve as the reasoning and decision-making core of an autonomous system.
To accomplish this process, an LLM-based agent relies on several complementary capabilities. Some of these capabilities are already inherited from LLMs. Recent advances in large-scale pretraining and post-training have significantly improved LLMs in instruction following, reasoning, code generation, and general world knowledge. These capabilities provide a strong foundation for agentic behavior, enabling LLMs to understand complex user requests and generate coherent intermediate reasoning steps without explicit interaction with the real-world environment. The rapid improvement of these intrinsic capabilities has been a key factor driving the emergence of LLM-based agents, making it increasingly feasible for a single model to serve as the reasoning and decision-making core of an autonomous system.
However, autonomous agents require capabilities that go beyond static reasoning. They must make sequential decisions over long horizons, coordinate multiple tool use, adapt to unexpected environmental feedback, and recover from execution failures. These capabilities cannot be effectively learned from static supervision alone because their quality depends on the outcomes of complete interaction trajectories rather than individual outputs. RL naturally addresses this challenge by optimizing behaviors through trial-and-error interaction, enabling agents to improve decisions based on delayed rewards and environmental feedback \citep{singh-etal:singhagentic}. As a result, RL complements the inherent reasoning abilities of LLMs by strengthening their decision-making and execution capabilities in dynamic environments. In the following sections, we discuss two representative capabilities that have become the primary focus of agentic RL: planning and tool use.
However, autonomous agents require capabilities that go beyond static reasoning. They must make sequential decisions over long horizons, coordinate multiple tool using, adapt to unexpected environmental feedback, and recover from execution failures. These capabilities cannot be effectively learned from static supervision alone because their quality depends on the outcomes of complete interaction trajectories rather than individual outputs. RL naturally addresses this challenge by optimizing behaviors through trial-and-error interaction, enabling agents to improve decisions based on delayed rewards and environmental feedback \citep{singh-etal:singhagentic}. As a result, RL complements the inherent reasoning abilities of LLMs by strengthening their decision-making and execution capabilities in dynamic environments. In the following sections, we discuss two representative capabilities that have become the primary focus of agentic RL: planning and tool using.
\subsubsection{Planning}
\subsubsection{Planning}
...
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ $\cdots \cdots$
...
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ $\cdots \cdots$
\end{tcolorbox}
\end{tcolorbox}
Unlike single-turn response generation, agent planning requires a sequence of interdependent decisions, where early choices can affect subsequent tool use, environmental feedback, and final task success. Improving planning capability therefore requires not only teaching the model to generate reasonable intermediate steps, but also enabling it to adjust its behavior based on execution outcomes. To this end, researchers have explored various approaches to achieving this goal. Among them, one promising approach is RL, as it naturally formulates agent planning as sequential decision-making driven by environmental feedback and trajectory-level rewards. In practice, SFT provides a cold start by allowing the model to imitate high-quality planning trajectories, while RL further refines the agent through interaction-based feedback and trajectory-level optimization.
Unlike single-turn response generation, agent planning requires a sequence of interdependent decisions, where early choices can affect subsequent tool using, environmental feedback, and final task success. Improving planning capability therefore requires not only teaching the model to generate reasonable intermediate steps, but also enabling it to adjust its behavior based on execution outcomes. To this end, researchers have explored various approaches to achieving this goal. Among them, one promising approach is RL, as it naturally formulates agent planning as sequential decision-making driven by environmental feedback and trajectory-level rewards. In practice, SFT provides a cold start by allowing the model to imitate high-quality planning trajectories, while RL further refines the agent through interaction-based feedback and trajectory-level optimization.
\subsubsubsection{Supervised Fine-Tuning}
\subsubsubsection{Supervised Fine-Tuning}
...
@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ Applying RL to agent planning introduces a key challenge: credit assignment. In
...
@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ Applying RL to agent planning introduces a key challenge: credit assignment. In
\label{fig:agent-credit-assignment}
\label{fig:agent-credit-assignment}
\end{figure*}
\end{figure*}
Consider the example above. If the agent correctly plans to compute the babysitting payment but calls the database API before obtaining the calculation result, the final task may fail. In this case, the failure should mainly be attributed to the incorrect ordering of tool use rather than to the entire plan. Conversely, if the agent chooses the wrong formula at the beginning, then the later database operation may be executed correctly, but the final result is still wrong. These cases show that different steps in an interaction trajectory may contribute differently to the final outcome.
Consider the example above. If the agent correctly plans to compute the babysitting payment but calls the database API before obtaining the calculation result, the final task may fail. In this case, the failure should mainly be attributed to the incorrect ordering of tool using rather than to the entire plan. Conversely, if the agent chooses the wrong formula at the beginning, then the later database operation may be executed correctly, but the final result is still wrong. These cases show that different steps in an interaction trajectory may contribute differently to the final outcome.
Given a trajectory $\tau=[p,u_1,o_1,\cdots,u_T,o_T]$, a simple RL objective uses a trajectory-level reward $R(\tau)$ to optimize the whole planning process. However, for long-horizon agent interactions, it is often more useful to decompose this feedback into step-level signals:
Given a trajectory $\tau=[p,u_1,o_1,\cdots,u_T,o_T]$, a simple RL objective uses a trajectory-level reward $R(\tau)$ to optimize the whole planning process. However, for long-horizon agent interactions, it is often more useful to decompose this feedback into step-level signals:
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
...
@@ -134,11 +134,21 @@ where $r_p$ indicates that the overall plan is reasonable, $r_1$ and $r_2$ indic
...
@@ -134,11 +134,21 @@ where $r_p$ indicates that the overall plan is reasonable, $r_1$ and $r_2$ indic
\subsubsection{Tool Use}
\subsubsection{Tool Using}
Tool using is another fundamental capability of LLM-based agents. Tools extend the agent's capability beyond its internal parameters. Prompt-based methods first show that LLMs can use tools through reasoning-action prompting. ReAct is a typical example \citep{yao-etal:react}. However, prompt-based tool use is unstable and depends on the base model. Thus, SFT methods train models on tool-use trajectories \citep{schick-etal:toolformer}. Still, SFT mainly teaches imitation. It cannot directly optimize whether the agent should use a tool, which tool to use, and how to balance tool benefit with tool cost. RL provides a natural framework for efficient tool using. We can define rewards based on task success, tool-use correctness, tool-use completeness, and tool cost \citep{qian-etal:toolrl}.
% 基于提示的方法来去使用Tool 比如react,
% 2. Prompt-based Tool Use
\subsubsubsection{Prompt-based Tool Using}
% 然后就是训练,让模型参数记住如何使用tool 比如toolformer
% 3. SFT for Tool Use
\subsubsubsection{Supervised Fine-Tuning}
% 4. RL for Tool Use
\subsubsubsection{Reinforcement Learning}
% 5. Efficient Tool using
\subsubsubsection{Efficient Tool Using}
...
@@ -146,6 +156,7 @@ where $r_p$ indicates that the overall plan is reasonable, $r_1$ and $r_2$ indic
...
@@ -146,6 +156,7 @@ where $r_p$ indicates that the overall plan is reasonable, $r_1$ and $r_2$ indic