Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 94 references

Agent-Environment Alignment via Automated Interface Generation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Generated interfaces lift LLM-agent success by 45.67% on ALFWorld

desk verdict ALIGN makes a real, substantial claim about automatically generated agent-environment interfaces; the empirical gains are large, but the wrapper's internal env.step calls create a state-change confound that needs an audit before the causal story holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21055 v1 pith:3JJHE5DS submitted 2025-05-27 cs.AI

Kaiming Liu , Xuanyu Lei , Ziyue Wang , Peng Li , Yang Liu This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords agent-environmentmisalignmentautomatedinterfacegenerationLLMagentsenvironmentwrapperpromptengineeringbenchmarkevaluationALIGNinteractivedecision-making
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that a large share of LLM-agent failures in interactive environments comes not from weak reasoning but from a mismatch between what agents expect an action to do and what the environment actually does — what it calls agent-environment misalignment. To test this, it introduces ALIGN, a framework that automatically generates an interface wrapper between agent and environment. The wrapper augments the static environment description with inferred rules and rewrites step-wise observations so that invalid actions come back with specific corrective feedback. Across embodied, web-navigation, and tool-use benchmarks, the generated interface improves every agent method tested, with an average success-rate gain of 45.67 percentage points on ALFWorld, and the same interface transfers to other agent architectures and LLM backbones without regeneration.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the interface wrapper Φ = {InferRules, WrapStep}, implemented as Python functions around the environment. InferRules maps (task, initial observation) to an augmented rule string that is injected into the agent's system prompt; WrapStep maps (environment, state, agent action) to an augmented observation, optionally executing probe actions (like 'look' or 'inventory') to determine context before responding. The Optimizer writes these functions with an LLM, and an experimental-verification loop runs them against the real environment to confirm each identified misalignment genuinely exists. This loop checks whether the proposed feedback is sufficient, and if not, it refines the interface before the agent is evaluated again.

What would settle it

Run the same agents on ALFWorld with a control wrapper that provides identical explanatory feedback but performs no probe env.step calls, or logs environment state before and after each probe. If the 45.67-point success gain collapses or shrinks to the level of a wrapper that merely appends static rules, then the claimed alignment effect is not caused by the added observations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that agent-environment misalignment is a pervasive, measurable bottleneck, and that it can be removed by an automatically generated interface rather than by retraining the agent or redesigning the environment. ALIGN's interface consists of two functions: InferRules, which extracts static environment rules and preconditions from the task and initial observation, and WrapStep, which intercepts each agent action and replaces terse failure observations (e.g., 'Nothing happens.') with diagnostic feedback explaining the violated precondition. The paper reports consistent gains on all four benchmarks and shows the same interface improves success for five different agent methods and across several LLM backbones. It concludes that once constraints are surfaced explicitly, agents execute their intended reasoning substantially more reliably.

Load-bearing premise

The wrapper's gains are attributed to the extra information it provides, but the generated code is allowed to call env.step probes that may permanently change the environment state; if those probes give the agent extra interactions the baseline never gets, the comparison may be measuring interaction budget rather than alignment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If ALIGN works as reported, interface design becomes a first-class, automatable factor in LLM-agent performance, comparable in effect to agent-strategy improvements.
  • Agents that receive explicit precondition feedback will emit fewer consecutive invalid actions (65% reduction on ALFWorld, 49% on ScienceWorld), meaning fewer repetitive error loops.
  • A single generated interface can be reused across agent architectures and model families, so interface generation and agent inference can be decoupled.
  • Benchmark comparisons become fairer: differences in results can be attributed to agent reasoning rather than ad-hoc environment re-engineering, since the wrapper is generated automatically rather than hand-tuned per method.
  • The findings predict that many apparent reasoning failures in existing benchmarks may be artifacts of under-specified interfaces, not intrinsic model limitations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If probe calls inside WrapStep are later shown to alter environment state, the measured gains could partly be a budget effect: agents receive more interactions than the baseline, and a control experiment with equal interaction budgets would separate 'better information' from 'more chances to act.'
  • The iterative generation loop (analyze failures, generate interface, verify) resembles automatic prompt-engineering and might be applied beyond wrappers, for example to generating task-level hints, action-space documents, or evaluation rubrics for other agent benchmarks.
  • The method's reliance on strong LLM generators for analysis and code generation suggests that interface quality will scale with generator capability; weaker generators would likely need a more sample-efficient verification loop to remain practical.
  • A testable extension is to apply the same interface to a non-LLM policy or a human user to see whether the benefit comes from clarifying latent environment rules generally rather than from quirks of LLM prompting.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper introduces ALIGN, an LLM-driven framework that automatically generates a wrapper interface between an LLM agent and an interactive environment. The interface consists of InferRules, which supplies static environment rules, and WrapStep, which enriches step-wise observations, often by intercepting invalid actions and returning corrective feedback. The authors formalize agent-environment misalignment, describe an iterative pipeline in which an Analyzer identifies misalignments from failed trajectories and an Optimizer generates and verifies interface code, and evaluate the wrapped environments on ALFWorld, ScienceWorld, WebShop, and M3ToolEval across five agent methods and several LLM backbones. The main empirical claim is that the ALIGN-generated interfaces yield large and consistent success-rate gains on all four benchmarks, with a mean improvement of 45.67 percentage points on ALFWorld, supported by ablations and generalization studies.

Significance. The problem is well-motivated and timely, and the paper makes a useful step toward automating interface design rather than hand-crafting environment-specific wrappers. The evaluation uses held-out task splits, which protects the main result from the most obvious circularity; the ablations on interface components and on the experimental-verification step help identify which parts of the framework matter; the cross-agent transfer results in Table 6 are uniformly positive; and the authors release code and results. If the wrapper's observational neutrality can be established and the generalization claims are calibrated to the per-cell data, the paper would be a solid contribution to the agent-interface line of work. The current manuscript, however, overstates two load-bearing guarantees: the formal claim that transition dynamics are unaltered, and the claim that interfaces generalize consistently across LLM backbones.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2 / Appendix D.3 / Appendix C.4] Section 3.2 states that the wrapped environment \tilde{E} = (S,A,T,\tilde{F}, I\cup\tilde{I}) 'does not alter the internal structure or transition dynamics' of the original environment, but the implementation in Appendix D.3 contradicts this as a general guarantee: the ALFWorld WrapStep calls env.step(['look']) and env.step(['inventory']) before every agent action, and the ScienceWorld _get_current_state helper calls env.step('look around'); the Optimizer prompt in Appendix C.4 explicitly permits multiple env.step calls and warns that each call 'causes an irreversible change to the environment state.' The paper does not audit all generated interfaces used in Tables 1-3 for the set of probe calls they issue, so the reported success gains in Table 1 could, in principle, reflect extra state-changing interactions performed by the wrapper rather than the informational content of the added observations. Please either enforce and verify that all probe calls in every generated interface are observation-only, or revise the formal claim and the causal interpretation accordingly.
  2. [Section 4.4 / Tables 7-9] The cross-model generalization claim is stated too strongly. The abstract says interfaces 'can generalize across different agent architectures and LLM backbones without interface regeneration,' and Section 4.4 says the results demonstrate 'performance improvements across base models of varying sizes and architectural families,' but the detailed tables contain several negative per-cell results: Llama3.1-8B-Instruct Vanilla WebShop -11.17 and Self-Consistency WebShop -13.97; Llama3.3-70B-Instruct Vanilla ALFWorld -9.71 and Vanilla M3ToolEval -4.17; Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct ReAct ScienceWorld -1.45 and Self-Consistency WebShop -1.56. The reported mean gains hide this variability, and 'consistent' is not an accurate description of the per-cell results. Please report the per-cell distribution or statistics and temper the generalization claim, or restrict it to the settings where it actually holds.
  3. [Tables 1-4 / Section C] The empirical results are single-run numbers with no variance estimates, despite stochasticity in the LLM serving pipeline, in the random selection of training tasks (Section C.1), and in the Optimizer's interface generation (temperature 0.2, Section C.2). Some reported differences are small relative to the likely noise, such as the -1.49 drop for Self-Consistency when omitting InferRules in Table 4 and several cross-model deltas in Tables 8-9 that are within a few points of zero. To support the 'consistent' and 'robust' conclusions, please provide multiple seeds or runs with error bars, or at least report the number of runs and the observed variance.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1] The phrase 'the inability of the environment to provide agent-parseable observations' is awkward; 'the failure of the environment to provide' would be clearer.
  2. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'the intended progress of the agent toward the goal to be disrupted' is grammatically incomplete; it should read 'the intended progress of the agent toward the goal can be disrupted.'
  3. [Abstract / Section 4.2] The '45.67% success rate improvement' is an absolute percentage-point improvement over the w/o-ALIGN baseline, not a relative percentage improvement; please specify 'percentage points' to avoid misinterpretation.
  4. [Table 5] The caption says 'Task accuracy (%) on ALFWorld across turns without experimental verification,' but no comparison with the full ALIGN pipeline on the same schedule is provided, so the reader cannot infer whether the absolute levels are meaningful; please add that comparison or clarify the intended reading.
  5. [Appendix D.3] The appendix shows only the Vanilla-agent-generated interfaces and defers all other interfaces used in Tables 1-3 to the repository; all interfaces used in the main results should be auditable in the supplementary material, especially given the wrapper-state concern raised above.
  6. [Section 3.3 / Appendix C.4] The experimental-verification procedure for both the Analyzer and the Optimizer is executed by the same GPT-4.1 family of models that produces the hypotheses and code; this is a mild self-verification limitation and should be explicitly acknowledged.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ALIGN is evaluated on held-out tasks and the main success-rate gains are not forced by construction.

full rationale

The central claim is that ALIGN-generated interfaces improve agent success rates. The interface is generated from failed trajectories on a training task split (Algorithm 1 uses Ttrain; Appendix C.1 defines the train/test splits) and evaluated on distinct held-out task splits, so the headline gains in Table 1 are genuine predictions rather than the fitted input renamed as output. The one self-citation, [55] (Yang, Li, and Liu, EMNLP 2023), appears only in the related-work survey of training-free rule-accumulation methods and is not load-bearing for ALIGN's empirical claims. The LLM-based Analyzer/Optimizer performs its own verification loop, which is self-referential as a process, but the final success metric is computed by the downstream agent in the environment, and the cross-agent and cross-model generalization experiments (Table 3) provide independent evidence that the gains are not purely an artifact of the generating model. The observation that generated WrapStep code calls env.step for probes such as look and inventory (Appendix D.3) conflicts with the Section 3.2 assertion that transition dynamics are unaltered; that is a validity or confound concern about whether the gains come from extra environment interactions rather than added observations, but it is not a case of a prediction being equivalent to its inputs by construction. No circular step rises to the level of flagging.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no fitted numeric parameters or new physical entities. It relies on domain assumptions about the reliability of LLM verification, task sampling representativeness, and the non-perturbativeness of the wrapper's probe calls.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption LLM-based experimental verification reliably confirms that generated interfaces fix identified misalignments without causing side effects.
    Section 3.3 introduces the verification loop but does not validate the verifier itself; the pipeline depends on the verifier not hallucinating success.
  • domain assumption The few sampled training tasks per type are representative of the held-out test distribution.
    Appendix C.1 samples 3 tasks for ALFWorld, 1 for ScienceWorld, 20 for WebShop; unrepresentative samples could cause interface overfitting.
  • domain assumption The wrapper's internal env.step probe calls do not meaningfully change the environment state relevant to task outcome.
    The paper claims no transition dynamics change (Section 3.2), but the generated code calls env.step for look/inventory (Appendix D.3), and the Optimizer prompt warns each env.step is irreversible (Appendix C.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Agent-Environment Alignment via Automated Interface Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3JJHE5DS

@misc{pith2026250521055,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Agent-Environment Alignment via Automated Interface Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3JJHE5DS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21055}
}
read the original abstract

Large language model (LLM) agents have shown impressive reasoning capabilities in interactive decision-making tasks. These agents interact with environment through intermediate interfaces, such as predefined action spaces and interaction rules, which mediate the perception and action. However, mismatches often happen between the internal expectations of the agent regarding the influence of its issued actions and the actual state transitions in the environment, a phenomenon referred to as \textbf{agent-environment misalignment}. While prior work has invested substantially in improving agent strategies and environment design, the critical role of the interface still remains underexplored. In this work, we empirically demonstrate that agent-environment misalignment poses a significant bottleneck to agent performance. To mitigate this issue, we propose \textbf{ALIGN}, an \underline{A}uto-A\underline{l}igned \underline{I}nterface \underline{G}e\underline{n}eration framework that alleviates the misalignment by enriching the interface. Specifically, the ALIGN-generated interface enhances both the static information of the environment and the step-wise observations returned to the agent. Implemented as a lightweight wrapper, this interface achieves the alignment without modifying either the agent logic or the environment code. Experiments across multiple domains including embodied tasks, web navigation and tool-use, show consistent performance improvements, with up to a 45.67\% success rate improvement observed in ALFWorld. Meanwhile, ALIGN-generated interface can generalize across different agent architectures and LLM backbones without interface regeneration. Code and experimental results are available at https://github.com/THUNLP-MT/ALIGN.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21055 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of agent-environment misalignment and our proposed solution. On the left, the agent and the environment have a misalignment in their interpretation of the same observa￾tion, where the agent’s understanding of the observation differs from the environment’s underlying logic. On the right, our method, ALIGN, automatically generates interfaces that provide the agent with clearer interaction context, alignin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the ALIGN￾generated interface. These enriched signals (I˜, o˜t) are generated without modifying the environment code, and are instead constructed by an inter￾face wrapper layered on top of the environment, as illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ALIGN framework. In each iteration, ALIGN progresses though three stages. Stage 1: the Analyzer identifies potential agent-environment misalignments and validates them through ex￾periments; Stage 2: the Optimizer generates a new interface based on the previous interface and identified misalignments, followed by verification and refinement; Stage 3: the agent interacts with the updated interface-wrapped environment, … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Agashe, J

    S. Agashe, J. Han, S. Gan, J. Y ang, A. Li, and X. E. Wang. Agent S: an open agentic framework that uses computers like a human. CoRR, abs/2410.08164, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2410. 08164. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.08164

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.08164 2024

  2. [2]

    H. Bai, Y . Zhou, E. L. Li, S. Levine, and A. Kumar. Digi-Q: T ransforming VLMs to device- control agents via value-based offline RL, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    Y . Bang, S. Cahyawijaya, N. Lee, W . Dai, D. Su, B. Wilie, H. Lovenia, Z. Ji, T. Y u, W . Chung, Q. V . Do, Y . Xu, and P . Fung. A multitask, multilingu al, multimodal evaluation of ChatGPT on reasoning, hallucination, and interactivity . In J. C. Park, Y . Arase, B. Hu, W . Lu, D. Wijaya, A. Purwarianti, and A. A. Krisnadhi, editor s, Proceedings of th...

    2023

  4. [4]

    Bonnet, D

    C. Bonnet, D. Luo, D. Byrne, S. Surana, S. Abramowitz, P . D uckworth, V . Coyette, L. I. Midgley, E. Tegegn, T. Kalloniatis, O. Mahjoub, M. Macfarla ne, A. P . Smit, N. Grinsztajn, R. Boige, C. N. Waters, M. A. Mimouni, U. A. M. Sob, R. de Kock, S . Singh, D. Furelos- Blanco, V . Le, A. Pretorius, and A. Laterre. Jumanji: a diver se suite of scalable rei...

    2024

  5. [5]

    Brockman, V

    G. Brockman, V . Cheung, L. Pettersson, J. Schneider, J. S chulman, J. Tang, and W . Zaremba. OpenAI gym. CoRR, abs/1606.01540, 2016. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01540

    arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    T. Bula, S. Pujar, L. Buratti, M. Bornea, and A. Sil. SeaVi ew: Software engineering agent visual interface for enhanced workflow. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08696 , 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    H. Chae, N. Kim, K. T. iunn Ong, M. Gwak, G. Song, J. Kim, S. K im, D. Lee, and J. Y eo. Web agents with world models: Learning and leveraging envir onment dynamics in web navi- gation. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Repre sentations, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=moWiYJuSGF

    2025

  8. [8]

    B. Chen, C. Shu, E. Shareghi, N. Collier, K. Narasimhan, a nd S. Y ao. FireAct: Toward lan- guage agent fine-tuning. CoRR, abs/2310.05915, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2310.05915. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.05915

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.05915 2023

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    M. Chen, Y . Li, Y . Y ang, S. Y u, B. Lin, and X. He. AutoManual : Constructing instruction manuals by LLM agents via interactive environmental learni ng. In A. Globersons, L. Mackey, D. Belgrave, A. Fan, U. Paquet, J. M. Tomczak, and C. Zhang, ed itors, Advances in Neural In...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Z. Chen, K. Liu, Q. Wang, W . Zhang, J. Liu, D. Lin, K. Chen, and F. Zhao. Agent-FLAN: De- signing data and methods of effective agent tuning for large language models. In L. Ku, A. Mar- tins, and V . Srikumar, editors,Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ...

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Z. Chen, M. Li, Y . Huang, Y . Du, M. Fang, and T. Zhou. A TLaS : Agent tuning via learn- ing critical steps. CoRR, abs/2503.02197, 2025. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2503.02197. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.02197

    2025 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    Driess, F

    D. Driess, F. Xia, M. S. M. Sajjadi, C. Lynch, A. Chowdher y, B. Ichter, A. Wahid, J. Tomp- son, Q. Vuong, T. Y u, W . Huang, Y . Chebotar, P . Sermanet, D. Du ckworth, S. Levine, V . V anhoucke, K. Hausman, M. Toussaint, K. Greff, A. Zeng, I. Mordatch, and P . Flo- rence. PaL...

    2023

  5. [13]

    P . Feng, Y . He, G. Huang, Y . Lin, H. Zhang, Y . Zhang, and H. Li. AGILE: A novel reinforcement learning framework of LLM agents. In A. Globe rsons, L. Mackey, D. Bel- grave, A. Fan, U. Paquet, J. M. Tomczak, and C. Zhang, editors , Advances in Neural Information Processing ...

    2024

  6. [14]

    D. Fu, K. He, Y . Wang, W . Hong, Z. Gongque, W . Zeng, W . Wang , J. Wang, X. Cai, and W . Xu. AgentRefine: Enhancing agent generalizati on through refine- ment tuning. CoRR, abs/2501.01702, 2025. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2501.01702. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.01702

    2025 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Gemini 2.5 Pro preview model card, 2025

    Google. Gemini 2.5 Pro preview model card, 2025. URL https://storage.googleapis.com/model-cards/document s/gemini-2.5-pro-preview.pdf

    2025

  8. [16]

    B. Gou, R. Wang, B. Zheng, Y . Xie, C. Chang, Y . Shu, H. Sun, and Y . Su. Navigating the digital world as humans do: Universal visual grounding for GUI agents. CoRR, abs/2410.05243, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2410.05243. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.05243

    2024 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    T. Guo, X. Chen, Y . Wang, R. Chang, S. Pei, N. V . Chawla, O. Wiest, and X. Zhang. Large language model based multi-agents: A survey of progre ss and challenges. In Pro- ceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conferen ce on Artificial Intelligence, IJ- CAI 2024, Jeju...

    2024

  10. [20]

    K. He, M. Zhang, S. Y an, P . Wu, and Z. Z. Chen. IDEA: Enhanc ing the rule learning abil- ity of large language model agent through induction, deduct ion, and abduction, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.10455

    2024

  11. [21]

    C. E. Jimenez, J. Y ang, A. Wettig, S. Y ao, K. Pei, O. Press , and K. R. Narasimhan. SWE- bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issue s? In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna , Austria, May 7-11, 2024 . Open- Rev...

    2024

  12. [22]

    Kolve, R

    E. Kolve, R. Mottaghi, D. Gordon, Y . Zhu, A. Gupta, and A. Farhadi. AI2-THOR: an interactive 3d environment for visual AI. CoRR, abs/1712.05474, 2017. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1712.05474

    2017 arXiv

  13. [23]

    W . Kwon, Z. Li, S. Zhuang, Y . Sheng, L. Zheng, C. H. Y u, J. E . Gonzalez, H. Zhang, and I. Stoica. Efficient memory management for large language mo del serving with pagedattention. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 29th Symposium on Operating Sy stems Principles, 2023

    2023

  14. [24]

    X. Lei, Z. Y ang, X. Chen, P . Li, and Y . Liu. Scaffolding co ordinates to promote vision- language coordination in large multi-modal models. In O. Ra mbow, L. Wanner, M. Apidi- anaki, H. Al-Khalifa, B. D. Eugenio, and S. Schockaert, edit ors, Proceedings of the 31st In- tern...

    2025

  15. [25]

    B. Y . Lin, Y . Fu, K. Y ang, F. Brahman, S. Huang, C. Bhagava tula, P . Ammanabrolu, Y . Choi, and X. Ren. SwiftSage: A generative agent with fast a nd slow thinking for complex interactive tasks. In A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globe rson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine, editor...

    2023

  16. [26]

    X. Liu, H. Y u, H. Zhang, Y . Xu, X. Lei, H. Lai, Y . Gu, H. Ding , K. Men, K. Y ang, S. Zhang, X. Deng, A. Zeng, Z. Du, C. Zhang, S. Shen, T. Zhang, Y . Su, H. Su n, M. Huang, Y . Dong, and J. Tang. AgentBench: Evaluating llms as agents. In The Twelfth International Conferenc...

    2024

  17. [27]

    Y . Lu, J. Y ang, Y . Shen, and A. A wadallah. OmniParser for pure vision based GUI agent. CoRR, abs/2408.00203, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2408.00203. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.00203

    2024 doi arXiv

  18. [28]

    C. Ma, J. Zhang, Z. Zhu, C. Y ang, Y . Y ang, Y . Jin, Z. Lan, L. Kong, and J. He. AgentBoard: An analytical evaluation board of multi-turn LLM agents. In A. Globersons, L. Mackey, D. Belgrave, A. Fan, U. Paquet, J. M. Tomczak, and C. Zhang, ed itors, Advances in Neural Inform...

    2024

  19. [29]

    Madaan, N

    A. Madaan, N. Tandon, P . Gupta, S. Hallinan, L. Gao, S. Wi egreffe, U. Alon, N. Dziri, S. Prabhumoye, Y . Y ang, S. Gupta, B. P . Majumder, K. Hermann, S. Welleck, A. Y az- danbakhsh, and P . Clark. Self-Refine: Iterative refinement w ith self-feedback. In A. Oh, T. Naumann, A....

    2023

  20. [30]

    Model cards and prompt formats Llama 3.1, 2025

    Meta. Model cards and prompt formats Llama 3.1, 2025. UR L https://www.llama.com/docs/model-cards-and-prompt-f ormats/llama3_1/

    2025

  21. [31]

    Model cards and prompt formats Llama 3.3, 2025

    Meta. Model cards and prompt formats Llama 3.3, 2025. UR L https://www.llama.com/docs/model-cards-and-prompt-f ormats/llama3_3/

    2025

  22. [32]

    R. Niu, J. Li, S. Wang, Y . Fu, X. Hu, X. Leng, H. Kong, Y . Cha ng, and Q. Wang. ScreenAgent: A vision language model-driven computer cont rol agent. In Proceed- ings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2024, Jeju, South Korea, ...

    2024

  23. [33]

    Introducing GPT-4.1 in the api, 2025

    OpenAI. Introducing GPT-4.1 in the api, 2025. URL https://openai.com/index/gpt-4-1/

    2025

  24. [34]

    Paranjape, S

    B. Paranjape, S. M. Lundberg, S. Singh, H. Hajishirzi, L . Zettlemoyer, and M. T. Ribeiro. ART: automatic multi-step reasoning and tool-use for large language mod- els. CoRR, abs/2303.09014, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2303.09014. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.09014

    2023 doi arXiv

  25. [35]

    Z. Qi, X. Liu, I. L. Iong, H. Lai, X. Sun, W . Zhao, Y . Y ang, X . Y ang, J. Sun, S. Y ao, T. Zhang, W . Xu, J. Tang, and Y . Dong. WebRL: Training LLM web agents via self-evolving online curriculum reinforcement learning. CoRR, abs/2411.02337, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV . 241...

    2024 doi arXiv

  26. [36]

    Y . Qin, Y . Y e, J. Fang, H. Wang, S. Liang, S. Tian, J. Zhang , J. Li, Y . Li, S. Huang, W . Zhong, K. Li, J. Y ang, Y . Miao, W . Lin, L. Liu, X. Jiang, Q. Ma , J. Li, X. Xiao, K. Cai, C. Li, Y . Zheng, C. Jin, C. Li, X. Zhou, M. Wang, H. Chen, Z. Li, H . Y ang, H. Liu, F. ...

    2025 doi arXiv

  27. [37]

    Rawles, S

    C. Rawles, S. Clinckemaillie, Y . Chang, J. Waltz, G. Lau , M. Fair, A. Li, W . E. Bishop, W . Li, F. Campbell-Ajala, D. Toyama, R. Berry, D. Tya magundlu, T. P . Lil- 12 licrap, and O. Riva. AndroidWorld: A dynamic benchmarking e nvironment for au- tonomous agents. CoRR, abs/...

    2024 doi arXiv

  28. [38]

    Schick, J

    T. Schick, J. Dwivedi-Y u, R. Dessì, R. Raileanu, M. Lome li, E. Hambro, L. Zettle- moyer, N. Cancedda, and T. Scialom. Toolformer: Language mo dels can teach themselves to use tools. In A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K . Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine, editors, Advances in...

    2023

  29. [39]

    Shinn, F

    N. Shinn, F. Cassano, A. Gopinath, K. Narasimhan, and S. Y ao. Reflexion: language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. In A. Oh, T. Naum ann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine, editors, Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems 36: Annual Confere...

    2023

  30. [40]

    Shridhar, X

    M. Shridhar, X. Y uan, M. Côté, Y . Bisk, A. Trischler, andM. J. Hausknecht. ALFWorld: Align- ing text and embodied environments for interactive learnin g. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Aus tria, May 3-7, 2021 . OpenRe- ...

    2021

  31. [41]

    Q. Sun, K. Cheng, Z. Ding, C. Jin, Y . Wang, F. Xu, Z. Wu, C. J ia, L. Chen, Z. Liu, B. Kao, G. Li, J. He, Y . Qiao, and Z. Wu. OS-Genesis: Automating GUI ag ent trajectory construction via reverse task synthesis. CoRR, abs/2412.19723, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2412.19723. UR...

    2024 doi arXiv

  32. [42]

    Q. Team. Qwen2.5: A party of foundation models, Septemb er 2024. URL https://qwenlm.github.io/blog/qwen2.5/

    2024

  33. [43]

    Towers, A

    M. Towers, A. Kwiatkowski, J. K. Terry, J. U. Balis, G. D. Cola, T. Deleu, M. Goulão, A. Kallinteris, M. Krimmel, A. KG, R. Perez-Vicente, A. Pier ré, S. Schulhoff, J. J. Tai, H. Tan, and O. G. Y ounis. Gymnasium: A standard interface for reinforcement learning environments. C...

    2024 doi arXiv

  34. [44]

    G. Wang, Y . Xie, Y . Jiang, A. Mandlekar, C. Xiao, Y . Zhu, L. Fan, and A. Anandkumar. V oy- ager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language mode ls. Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. , 2024, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=ehfRiF0R3a

    2024

  35. [46]

    X. Wang, J. Wei, D. Schuurmans, Q. V . Le, E. H. Chi, S. Nara ng, A. Chowdhery, and D. Zhou. Self-Consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in la nguage models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, IC LR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5,

    2023

  36. [47]

    X. Wang, Y . Chen, L. Y uan, Y . Zhang, Y . Li, H. Peng, and H. J i. Executable code actions elicit better LLM agents. In F orty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2024, Vienna, Austria, July 21-27, 2024 . OpenReview.net, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/f...

    2024

  37. [48]

    Z. Wang, Y . Dong, F. Luo, M. Ruan, Z. Cheng, C. Chen, P . Li, and Y . Liu. How do multimodal large language models handle complex multimodal reasoning ? placing them in an extensible escape game, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.10042

    2025 arXiv

  38. [49]

    Z. Wang, K. Wang, Q. Wang, P . Zhang, L. Li, Z. Y ang, K. Y u, M . N. Nguyen, L. Liu, E. Got- tlieb, M. Lam, Y . Lu, K. Cho, J. Wu, L. Fei-Fei, L. Wang, Y . Choi , and M. Li. RAGEN: Understanding self-evolution in llm agents via multi-turn reinforcement learning, 2025. URL htt...

    2025 arXiv

  39. [50]

    J. Wei, Z. Sun, S. Papay, S. McKinney, J. Han, I. Fulford, H. W . Chung, A. T. Passos, W . Fedus, and A. Glaese. BrowseComp: A simple yet challenging benchma rk for browsing agents, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.12516

    2025 arXiv

  40. [51]

    T. Xie, D. Zhang, J. Chen, X. Li, S. Zhao, R. Cao, T. J. Hua, Z. Cheng, D. Shin, F. Lei, Y . Liu, Y . Xu, S. Zhou, S. Savarese, C. Xiong, V . Zhong, and T. Y u. OS- World: Benchmarking multimodal agents for open-ended task s in real computer environments. In A. Globersons, L. ...

    2024

  41. [52]

    Z. Xu, S. Jain, and M. S. Kankanhalli. Hallucination is i nevitable: An innate limitation of large language models. CoRR, abs/2401.11817, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2401.11817. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.11817

    2024 doi arXiv

  42. [53]

    Y ang, H

    J. Y ang, H. Zhang, F. Li, X. Zou, C. Li, and J. Gao. Set-of- Mark prompting unleashes extraor- dinary visual grounding in GPT-4V. CoRR, abs/2310.11441, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV . 2310.11441. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.11441

    2023 doi arXiv

  43. [54]

    Y ang, C

    J. Y ang, C. E. Jimenez, A. Wettig, K. Lieret, S. Y ao, K. Na rasimhan, and O. Press. SWE-agent: Agent-computer interfaces enable aut omated software en- gineering. In A. Globersons, L. Mackey, D. Belgrave, A. Fan, U. Paquet, J. M. Tomczak, and C. Zhang, editors, Advances in N...

    2024

  44. [55]

    Y ang, P

    Z. Y ang, P . Li, and Y . Liu. Failures pave the way: Enhanci ng large language mod- els through tuning-free rule accumulation. In H. Bouamor, J . Pino, and K. Bali, edi- tors, Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in N atural Language Pro- cessing, EMNLP 202...

    2023 doi

  45. [56]

    Y ang, P

    Z. Y ang, P . Li, M. Y an, J. Zhang, F. Huang, and Y . Liu. ReAct meets ActRe: When language agents enjoy training data autonomy. CoRR, abs/2403.14589, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV . 2403.14589. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.14589

    2024 doi arXiv

  46. [57]

    S. Y ao, H. Chen, J. Y ang, and K. Narasimhan. WebShop: Tow ards scalable real-world web interaction with grounded language agents. In S. Koyejo , S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh, editors, Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems 35: Annual Co...

    2022

  47. [58]

    S. Y ao, J. Zhao, D. Y u, N. Du, I. Shafran, K. R. Narasimhan , and Y . Cao. ReAct: Syner- gizing reasoning and acting in language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, Ma y 1-5, 2023 . OpenReview.net,

    2023

  48. [59]

    A. Zeng, M. Liu, R. Lu, B. Wang, X. Liu, Y . Dong, and J. Tang . AgentTuning: En- abling generalized agent abilities for LLMs. In L. Ku, A. Mar tins, and V . Srikumar, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics , ACL 2024, Bangkok, Thailand and virtual ...

    2024 doi

  49. [60]

    Zheng, B

    B. Zheng, B. Gou, J. Kil, H. Sun, and Y . Su. GPT-4V(ision) is a generalist web agent, if grounded. In F orty-first International Conference on Machine Learn- ing, ICML 2024, Vienna, Austria, July 21-27, 2024 . OpenReview.net, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=piecKJ2DlB

    2024

  50. [61]

    URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=WE_vluYUL-X

  51. [62]

    S. Zhou, F. F. Xu, H. Zhu, X. Zhou, R. Lo, A. Sridhar, X. Che ng, T. Ou, Y . Bisk, D. Fried, U. Alon, and G. Neubig. WebArena: A realistic web en vironment for build- ing autonomous agents. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations, ICLR 2024, Vienn...

    2024

  52. [63]

    S. Zhou, T. Zhou, Y . Y ang, G. Long, D. Y e, J. Jiang, and C. Zhang. W ALL-E: world alignment by rule learning improves world model-based LLM agents. CoRR, abs/2410.07484, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2410.07484. URLhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.07484

    2024 doi arXiv

  53. [64]

    Zheng, W

    L. Zheng, W . Chiang, Y . Sheng, S. Zhuang, Z. Wu, Y . Zhuang , Z. Lin, Z. Li, D. Li, E. P . Xing, H. Zhang, J. E. Gonzalez, and I. Stoica. Judg ing LLM-as-a- Judge with MT-Bench and chatbot arena. In A. Oh, T. Naumann, A . Globerson, 14 K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine, edi...

    2023

  54. [67]

    Noth ing happens

    Y . Zhou, A. Zanette, J. Pan, S. Levine, and A. Kumar. ArCH er: Training language model agents via hierarchical multi-turn RL. In F orty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2024, Vienna, Austria, July 21-27, 2024 . OpenReview.net, 2024. URL https://openrevi...

    2024

  55. [68]

    - ‘task_id‘ must be in the format ’int-int’ where the first int ∈ [0, 5]

    init_simulator(task_id: str) - Initializes a new simulator for the specified ‘task_id‘. - ‘task_id‘ must be in the format ’int-int’ where the first int ∈ [0, 5]. 18 - The different task types are mapped as follows: 0: ’pick_and_place’, 1: ’pick_clean_and_place’, 2: ’pick_heat_an...

  56. [70]

    execute_agent_action(agent_action: str) - Executes an agent action using the ‘WrapStep‘ function

  57. [72]

    ‘txt ### Analysis Result 1 Analysis Task ID: xxx Agent Action Type: xxx # The type of action the Agent attempte d to perform, such as

    get_next_agent_action() - Retrieves the next action that the real Agent would perform under the current simulation conditions. - Note: The Agent’s choice of the next action is based on the cu rrent environment state, including the outcomes of any previous ‘step()‘ or ‘get_nex ...

  58. [73]

    environment_rules: Use ‘execute_agent_action‘ to confi rm that the environment rules you hypothesized are indeed correct, and current ‘WrapStep ‘ function is not sufficient

  59. [74]

    agent_intent_description: Obtain the Agent’s intended behavior (e.g., via ‘get_next_agent_action‘) and simulate it by using ‘WrapSt ep‘ to confirm whether it aligns with your description

  60. [75]

    identified_misalignment: Through chaning the environme nt feedback, you can verify whether the misalignment you identified is indeed correct an d the environment feedback you hypothesized is indeed sufficient. Y ou can use ‘WrapStep ‘ to simulate the agent’s action, then use ‘cha...

  61. [76]

    - task: str, the task description

    **Function Signature** The function signature must be: “‘python def InferRules(init_obs, task) - init_obs: str, the initial observation from the environme nt, containing all receptacles. - task: str, the task description. def WrapStep(env, init_obs, task, agent_action: str, lo...

  62. [77]

    The ‘WrapStep‘ function’s return value must be three items: “‘python obs: str, reward: bool, done: bool “‘

    **Return V alues** The ‘InferRules‘ function’s return value must be a string th at describes the environment rules. The ‘WrapStep‘ function’s return value must be three items: “‘python obs: str, reward: bool, done: bool “‘

  63. [78]

    Each call to env.ste p causes an irreversible change to the environment state; actions must therefore be chosen c arefully

    **‘env.step‘ Usage** The only permitted usage pattern for ‘env.step‘ is: “‘python obs, reward, done, info = env.step([agent_action]) obs, reward, done = obs[0], info[’won’][0], done[0] “‘ No alternative usage forms are allowed. Each call to env.ste p causes an irreversible cha...

  64. [79]

    **Package Imports** Y ou may import other packages if necessary, but you must incl ude all imports in your code

  65. [80]

    **Multiple Calls and Conditional Returns** Y ou are free to call ‘env.step‘ multiple times or return diff erent ‘obs‘ depending on ‘agent_action‘ or the outcomes of these calls

  66. [81]

    The logging will be captured and returned to you in the future for further analys is

    **Y ou can use logger.debug** Y ou can use ‘logger.debug‘ to log any information you find use ful. The logging will be captured and returned to you in the future for further analys is

  67. [82]

    New Environment Logics and Misalignment Analyzed by Analy sisAgent

    Do not modify any aspects not explicitly identified by the A nalysisAgent in the “New Environment Logics and Misalignment Analyzed by Analy sisAgent” section

  68. [83]

    Y ou must use the following approach when addressing the id entified misalign- ment: - For each action defined in environment, provide clear, info rmative, and sufficient feedback from the environment whenever an invalid action is attempte d, guiding the Agent toward understandin...

  69. [84]

    **Output Format** Y ou must provide the output strictly in the following format : <thought>YOUR_THOUGHT_PROCESS_HERE</thought> <code>YOUR_CODE_HERE</code> Please ensure your final answer follows these guidelines so t hat we can accurately 23 bridge the misalignment and allow th...

  70. [85]

    - ‘task_id‘ must be in the format ’int-int’ where the first int ∈ [0, 5]

    init_simulator(task_id: str) - Initializes a new simulator for the specified ‘task_id‘. - ‘task_id‘ must be in the format ’int-int’ where the first int ∈ [0, 5]. - The different task types are mapped as follows: 0: ’pick_and_place’, 1: ’pick_clean_and_place’, 2: ’pick_heat_and_p...

  71. [86]

    reset_simulator() - Resets the current simulator to its initial state

  72. [87]

    execute_agent_action(agent_action: str) - Executes an agent action using the ‘WrapStep‘ function you generated

  73. [88]

    - This is useful for simulating the agent’s next action in a di fferent environment feedback context

    change_last_action_observation(obs: str) - Updates the last observation returned by the simulator to t he specified ‘obs‘. - This is useful for simulating the agent’s next action in a di fferent environment feedback context

  74. [89]

    get_next_agent_action() - Retrieves the next action that the real Agent would perform under the current simulation conditions. - Note: The Agent’s choice of the next action is based on the cu rrent environment state, including the outcomes of any previous ‘step()‘ or ‘get_nex ...

  75. [90]

    x-y"), step(action=

    run_task(task_id: str) - Runs the entire task in the simulator and returns the runnin g log. - After running the whole task, you need to call ‘init_simula tor‘ or ‘reset_simulator‘ to reinitialize the simulator for further operations. If you believe you have reached a conclusi...

  76. [91]

    - You can only interact with objects and receptacles that are at your current location

    Navigation and Location Rules : - You must go to a receptacle before you can examine it , open it , close it , or interact with objects in / on it . - You can only interact with objects and receptacles that are at your current location . - If you try to interact with a recepta...

  77. [92]

    - Once you take an object , it goes into your inventory and is no longer at its original location

    Object Interaction Rules : - To take an object , it must be present at your current location and visible ( not inside a closed receptacle ) . - Once you take an object , it goes into your inventory and is no longer at its original location . - To move an object to a receptacle...

  78. [93]

    - You must open a closed container before you can take objects from it or put objects into it

    Container Rules : - Some receptacles can be opened and closed ( like refrigerat ors , microwaves , cabinets , etc .) . - You must open a closed container before you can take objects from it or put objects into it . - Objects inside closed containers are not visible or accessib...

  79. [94]

    Action Sequence Requirements : - Some tasks require a specific sequence of actions - for example , to heat food , you need to : a ) Go to the microwave b ) Open the microwave c ) Place the food inside d ) Close the microwave e ) Use the microwave - The environment will guide y...

  80. [95]

    "" def WrapStep ( env , init_obs , task , agent_action : str , logger ) :

    Feedback Interpretati on : - If an action cannot be performed , the environment will explain why and what prerequisite s are needed . - The environment will inform you if you try to take an object that ’s already in your inventory . - The environment will inform you if you try...

  81. [96]

    - Using func ( arg ) instead of func , arg

    Check for common invocation errors based on Analysis Resu lts 1 and 2: - Using func () instead of func . - Using func ( arg ) instead of func , arg

  82. [97]

    If no known format errors are detected , pass the action to t he environment ’s step function

  83. [98]

    Check for specific scenarios based on Analysis Result 3: - If the task involves finding Allison Hill ’s email and the agent provides an incorrect final answer , modify the feedback to acknowledge the potential non - discoverabi li ty

  84. [99]

    "" obs , reward , done =

    Check for specific scenarios based on Analysis Result 4: - If the task is c r y p t o b o t a n i s t s _ p l a n t _ d n a _ s e q u e n c e r ( task_type_idx =1) and the agent provides an incorrect answe r formatted as a list , modify the feedback to clarify that only the si...

  85. [2023]

    URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=1PL1NIMMrw

    OpenReview.net, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=1PL1NIMMrw

    2023

  86. [2024]

    URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=zAdUB0aCTQ

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.