Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Prefix-GRPO claims that a teacher trajectory, sliced into replay-validated prefixes that are themselves optimized with GRPO-style clipping, yields better small-model agents than distillation, response-only reinforcement learning, or replay-

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 08:51 UTC pith:73KA2Z6S

load-bearing objection A concrete, well-ablated method that turns one teacher trajectory into several replayable decision points; the main open questions are single-run results and whether replay validation selects an easier task distribution. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19395 v1 pith:73KA2Z6S submitted 2026-07-03 cs.LG cs.AI

From Trajectories to Prefixes: Reusing Teacher Trajectories via Replayed Prefixes and Online Continuation

Yihan Wang , Zhong Guan , Haoran Sun , Jiale Huang , Likang Wu , Hongke Zhao This is my paper
classification cs.LG cs.AI
keywords Prefix-GRPOteacher trajectory reusereplay validationGRPOsmall language modelsagentic reinforcement learninglong-horizon taskstrajectory decomposition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper is trying to establish that the right way to reuse a strong teacher's interaction log is not to imitate it wholesale, and not to use pieces of it as passive context, but to slice it into several prefix queries, replay each prefix inside the environment to recover a genuine intermediate state, and then train the small student model to continue from that state while also applying GRPO-style policy updates to the teacher's own historical assistant tokens in the prefix. The proposed objective unifies prefix learning and continuation learning in one clipped ratio form (Eq. 6). Across TextCraft, BabyAI, and ALFWorld, the method achieves the best Pass@8, and on TextCraft the gap is large: replaying prefixes without optimizing them gives 78.79 Pass@8, while explicit prefix optimization reaches 96.00. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a recipe for getting more training signal out of each expensive teacher trajectory, addressing a mismatch between how distillation consumes trajectories and how long-horizon decisions actually work.

Core claim

Prefix-GRPO's central claim is that a single teacher trajectory can be decomposed into multiple replay-aligned cut states, each of which becomes a full RL training query: the teacher prefix is replayed in the environment to recover a validated intermediate observation, the prompt is canonicalized to end at that cut-state observation, the student rolls out the continuation online and receives task reward, and the same clipped GRPO surrogate is applied to the student's continuation tokens and to the teacher's historical assistant prefix tokens, whose old log-probabilities are cached from the policy-distilled SFT checkpoint. Continuation rewards use group-relative advantages; the prefix branch

What carries the argument

Three pieces carry the argument. (i) Replay validation and canonicalization: each candidate prefix is executed in a fresh environment instance and kept only if the replayed observations match the teacher continuation on shared structured fields (Inventory, Got..., Crafted...); the surviving prompt ends at the recovered cut-state observation so the student always starts from an environment-consistent state. (ii) Prompt-space prefix sidecar (span [b_i,e_i), mask m_i, cached old log-probs from the SFT checkpoint) which lets historical assistant tokens inside the middle of the prompt participate in a PPO/GRPO-style ratio-clipped objective despite not being sampled online. (iii) The unified clipp

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that replaying the teacher's prefix actions in a fresh environment instance returns an intermediate state whose future task structure matches the cached teacher continuation, so that the teacher prefix remains a trustworthy learning signal; this is checked by matching a small set of shared observational fields, roughly 15–17% of candidate prefixes are discarded, and all reported RL performance is computed on the surviving subset.

What would settle it

On a deliberately randomized version of TextCraft (e.g., noisy initial inventories or randomized recipe orders) the replay-validation match becomes looser; if Prefix-GRPO's advantage over replay-only and SFT→GRPO shrinks or vanishes as replay fidelity degrades, then replay validation — not prefix optimization — is the load-bearing component. A complementary check: take prefix queries that failed replay validation, build their prompts anyway, and train with the same objective; if they train as well as validated queries, the filtering step is not essential, whereas if they collapse, replay valid

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • One teacher trajectory can supply up to four training queries (entropy-change Top-3 cuts plus the raw no-prefix query), multiplying the decision-aware RL signal obtained from an expensive teacher rollout.
  • Simply replaying a teacher prefix as context barely improves over response-only RL — explicit prefix-token optimization is needed (TextCraft Pass@8 78.79 to 96.00), so future methods should treat prefix tokens as optimization targets, not conditions.
  • Prefix optimization primarily improves best-of-k recovery (Pass@8) rather than average rollout reliability (Avg@8); strongest SFT-initialized RL baselines often match or beat it on Avg@8, so the two metrics measure distinct skills and should both be reported.
  • The same unified clipped-objective pattern can be reapplied wherever a replayed intermediate state and an offline old-policy estimate exist, not only for this specific environment set.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This reader's inference: if the effect transfers, the entropy-change cut rule implies a general curriculum principle — cut trajectories where the student's uncertainty changes most sharply, not where it is highest; this is a testable heuristic for any distillation-plus-RL pipeline.
  • The SFT-old-policy anchor offers a generic fix for the 'missing old logits' problem in off-policy agent RL: cache old log-probs from a fixed reference checkpoint instead of trying to reconstruct them from asynchronous rollouts.
  • The method's dependence on replay verification suggests a boundary: in stochastic or partially observable environments where replays diverge, the approach would need state abstraction or learned world models; the gains reported here may partly come from the fact that these three environments are deterministic enough to be replayed.
  • A worthwhile ablation the paper leaves implicit is whether a random cut rule with matched replay-validation rate reproduces the entropy-change gains — that would isolate the contribution of cut selection from replay validation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Prefix-GRPO, an RL framework for small-model agents that decomposes teacher trajectories into multiple cut-state queries. Each query replays the teacher prefix in the environment, validates the resulting state by matching structured fields, then canonicalizes the prompt to end at the cut-state observation. The student continues online and receives task reward. The new ingredient is that historical assistant tokens in the replayed prefix are also optimized with a clipped GRPO-like surrogate, using a policy-distilled SFT checkpoint to provide old log-probabilities and the absolute continuation advantage as weight. Experiments on TextCraft, BabyAI, and ALFWorld with Qwen3-1.7B show that Prefix-GRPO achieves the best Pass@8 in all three environments; ablations show that entropy-change cut selection and explicit prefix optimization outperform replay-only and several design variants.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper contributes a novel and generally applicable way to reuse teacher trajectories: splitting trajectories into multiple replay-validated starting states and treating prefix tokens as optimization targets. The main internal ablation (Replay-GRPO vs. Prefix-GRPO) is well controlled and shows a large, credible gain on TextCraft (Pass@8 78.79→96.00). The paper also provides many useful ablations (construction family, advantage assignment, loss combination, clipping) and releases code, which are strengths. However, the improvements over the strongest full-trajectory baselines are small (at most ~1 point Pass@8), and all runs appear to be single-seed, so the headline comparison is fragile. The correctness of the method hinges on replay validation recovering states consistent with the teacher continuation; this is only partially validated in TextCraft and is not described at all for BabyAI/ALFWorld.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, App. A.2, Table 10] The central premise is that replay validation recovers a state from which the environment's continuation is approximately the teacher's continuation. As written, validation is defined only for TextCraft and checks only shared structured fields (Inventory:, Got..., Crafted...) on one or two observations. No replay-validation procedure or success rate is reported for BabyAI or ALFWorld, although the method's results in Tables 2-3 are computed under the same premise. Table 10 shows that 15-17% of TextCraft prefix candidates fail validation, but the paper does not report which tasks, depths, or difficulty levels are dropped, nor whether the validated training distribution differs from the full-trajectory baseline distribution. If validation systematically removes harder cut states, the comparison with SFT→DAPO/GRPO baselines is confounded. Please provide per-environment validation protocols,
  2. [§3.2-3.3, Eq. (4), Eq. (6)] The prefix ratio in Eq. (4) is written as an importance ratio exp(log π_θ(z|x) − ℓ^old), with ℓ^old computed by teacher forcing under the SFT checkpoint. But the assistant prefix tokens were generated by the teacher (MiniMax-M2.1), not sampled from the SFT policy. The SFT log-probabilities are therefore not old-policy probabilities of the data-generating process, and clipping Eq. (6) does not inherit the theoretical justification of PPO/GRPO. The objective is closer to a reward-weighted supervised anchor on teacher tokens. The paper acknowledges this limitation in Section 5, but Sections 1 and 3.3 describe it as the 'same clipped policy-optimization form,' which overstates the theoretical status. Since the objective is the core novelty, the authors should either provide a principled derivation (e.g., as a KL-regularized objective) or run an ablation that replaces the SFT anchor with a po
  3. [§4.2, Tables 1-3, §5] The experiments appear to be single-run (Section 5: 'most results are single-run experiments'), and the differences from the strongest full-trajectory baseline are very small: TextCraft Pass@8 96.00 vs. 95.96 for SFT→DAPO; ALFWorld 94.50 vs. 93.50 for SFT→GRPO-MIS; BabyAI 100.00 vs. 97.78-98.89 for SFT→GRPO/GRPO-MIS/DAPO. No variance estimates or significance tests are reported. The internal Replay-GRPO vs. Prefix-GRPO gap on TextCraft (78.79→96.00) is large and well controlled, so the claim that explicit prefix optimization helps is credible. But the headline claim that Prefix-GRPO 'improves small-model agents over ... standard RL baselines' is not established from single runs with sub-point margins on two of three environments. Please report multiple seeds (or at least multiple evaluation seeds) and error bars, and state the number of runs explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [App. A.2, Table 10] The columns 'Validated' and 'Trainable' are confusing: for Fixed-Ratio rows, Trainable > Validated. Clarify whether raw no-prefix queries are included in Trainable and define the relationship between the two columns in the caption.
  2. [App. A.1, Table 9] The caption uses 'prefix fullflow data,' which appears to be a typo for 'prefix fullflow' or 'Prefix-GRPO.' More importantly, the table does not state how many rows are raw no-prefix queries vs. prefix queries; add a breakdown.
  3. [§3.1, Figure 2] Figure 2 is referenced in the text, but the figure is not present in the main-text copy provided. Ensure that the final manuscript includes the figure with all referenced panels.
  4. [App. A.2, Eq. (7)] The entropy H_t is defined over the full vocabulary, but the text says scoring is restricted to the interaction_assistant token domain. Clarify whether the restriction applies to positions, to the vocabulary distribution, or to both.
  5. [App. D.3] The text states 'every failed rollout reaches the 30-turn limit,' then later says 'only one failed sample ends with an invalid action.' These statements are inconsistent if an invalid action terminates the rollout early; qualify the first sentence (e.g., 'nearly all failed rollouts').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Prefix-GRPO is an empirical training method whose objective and ablations are self-contained, and its main result does not reduce to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper does not claim a derivation in the sense of deriving a prediction from an input; it proposes a training objective (Eq. 6) and evaluates it empirically against external baselines (GRPO, DAPO, SFT) on three standard environments. The prefix branch uses the SFT checkpoint both to select cut points via teacher-forcing entropy (Eqs. 7-8) and to compute old log-probabilities for prefix tokens (Eq. 4 and Appendix A.2). This is a shared modeling choice, but it is not a definitional reduction: the reported outcomes (environment reward, Avg@8, Pass@8) are external to the SFT model, and the Replay-GRPO ablation (Table 5) isolates the effect of the prefix loss on the same data, so the central claim does not reduce to the construction. The self-citations [27]-[31] appear only in related work and motivation; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from them as load-bearing evidence. The replay-validation selection effect (Appendix A.2, Table 10) and the acknowledged single-run limitation are validity concerns, not circularity. No circular step can be exhibited by quoting an equation that is identical to its input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 2 invented entities

Everything the central claim rests on top of the standard GRPO/SFT setup: five hand-chosen constants (w, k, lambda_pre, clip range, SFT checkpoint), four domain assumptions about replay validity, old-policy anchoring, reward representation, and environment representativeness, and zero independently validated new entities, as the prefix sidecar is internal. The heaviest unvalidated load is the SFT-anchor distributional assumption and the replay-equivalence assumption.

free parameters (5)
  • entropy smoothing window w = 11
    Used in Eq. (8) for the entropy-change score. The paper explicitly states 'w=11 ... rather than as a sensitivity-tuned optimum', so it is a chosen constant.
  • top-k distinct assistant turns = 3
    Declared as the main instantiation 'to expose multiple cut states while keeping dataset expansion manageable, rather than claiming it as a sensitivity-tuned optimum.'
  • prefix loss weight lambda_pre = 1.0
    Set to 1.0 in the main configuration; ablation shows 0.5 is slightly worse, but no principled derivation.
  • prefix clip low/high = 0.2/0.2
    Swept in Table 16; 0.2/0.2 is the best Pass@8 but was not derived from a prior.
  • SFT checkpoint old-policy anchor = Qwen3-1.7B SFT 20 epochs, lr 1e-5
    The SFT checkpoint is chosen before RL and serves both as the old policy for prefixes and the entropy scorer for cut selection.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Replay validation by matching shared structured fields (Inventory:, Got..., Crafted...) implies the recovered intermediate state is a valid starting state for the same task continuation.
    Section 3.1 and Appendix A.2. Only one or two observations are compared; if the teacher's hidden state (e.g., a sequence of earlier actions not visible in the matched fields) matters for future reward, the state is not actually recovered.
  • domain assumption The policy-distilled SFT checkpoint provides a valid old-policy estimate for teacher prefix tokens sampled by a different policy (MiniMax-M2.1), so the importance ratio in Eq. (4) is well-defined and unbiased.
    Section 3.2 and Conclusion: 'the SFT old-policy anchor still needs more systematic study.' This is a distributional assumption that the off-policy correction is meaningful.
  • domain assumption Success of the environment rollout is fully captured by the reward function (one scalar success proxy), and the continuation advantage can be broadcast as token-level advantage.
    Equations (3) and (5): the token-level advantage is the sequence-level advantage broadcast to valid continuation positions.
  • domain assumption The three environments (TextCraft, BabyAI, ALFWorld) are representative of long-horizon interactive agent tasks.
    Section 4.1 claims they cover symbolic planning, grounded instruction following, and household manipulation, but they all share the same text-observation interface.
invented entities (2)
  • Prompt-space prefix span-mask-logprob sidecar (b_i, e_i, m_i, l^old_i, n_i) no independent evidence
    purpose: Coordinates which historical assistant tokens inside a canonicalized prompt receive prefix policy loss, and caches their old log-probs.
    This is a data-structure/training artifact, not a physical entity. No falsifiable external prediction is attached.
  • Replay-validated cut-state query no independent evidence
    purpose: A training state constructed by replaying the teacher prefix and canonicalizing the prompt to end at the cut-state observation.
    Internal training construction; no external handle beyond the method's own success metrics.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18581 in / 9101 out tokens · 70898 ms · 2026-08-02T08:51:26.555886+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Small language models are attractive backbones for interactive agents, but direct distillation from strong teacher trajectories often turns rich multi-turn behavior into one-shot imitation targets. This is inefficient in long-horizon environments, where early decisions shape later states and rewards. We propose Prefix-GRPO, a reinforcement learning framework that decomposes teacher trajectories into replay-aligned prefix queries and online continuations. Each prefix is replayed in the environment to recover a valid intermediate state, after which the student continues online interaction and receives task reward. Unlike response-only GRPO, Prefix-GRPO also applies clipped policy updates to historical assistant tokens inside the replayed prefix, using a policy-distilled SFT checkpoint to estimate their old log-probabilities. This unifies prefix learning and continuation learning within the same policy-optimization form. Experiments on TextCraft, BabyAI, and ALFWorld show that Prefix-GRPO improves small-model agents over distillation and standard RL baselines, while ablations show that replay alone is insufficient without explicit prefix-token optimization. The implementation and reproduction scripts are available at https://github.com/HappynessI/Prefix_GRPO.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19395 by Haoran Sun, Hongke Zhao, Jiale Huang, Likang Wu, Yihan Wang, Zhong Guan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of Prefix-GRPO. A distilled teacher trajectory is decomposed into prefix queries [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Group-query prefix construction. Prefix-GRPO selects multiple cut points from a teacher [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Training dynamics of Prefix-GRPO on TextCraft. Curves show that optimization increases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: TextCraft evaluation diagnostics. Prefix-GRPO achieves near-saturated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Representative TextCraft rollouts from Prefix-GRPO. The successful trajectory completes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    C., and Molchanov, P

    Belcak, P., Heinrich, G., Diao, S., Fu, Y ., Dong, X., Muralidharan, S., Lin, Y . C., and Molchanov, P. (2025).Small Language Models are the Future of Agentic AI.CoRR, abs/2506.02153. https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.02153

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.02153 2025

  2. [2]

    Kang, M., Jeong, J., Lee, S., Cho, J., and Hwang, S. J. (2025).Distilling LLM Agent into Small Models with Retrieval and Code Tools.CoRR, abs/2505.17612. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.17612

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.17612 2025

  3. [3]

    G., Xia, T., Mao, H., Thumiger, N., Desai, A., Stoica, I., Klimovic, A., Neubig, G., and Gonzalez, J

    Cuadron, A., Li, D., Ma, W., Wang, X., Wang, Y ., Zhuang, S., Liu, S., Schroeder, L. G., Xia, T., Mao, H., Thumiger, N., Desai, A., Stoica, I., Klimovic, A., Neubig, G., and Gonzalez, J. E. (2025).The Danger of Overthinking: Examining the Reasoning-Action Dilemma in Agentic Tasks.CoRR, abs/2502.08235. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.08235

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.08235 2025

  4. [4]

    (2025a).Making Small Language Models Efficient Reasoners: Intervention, Supervision, Reinforcement.CoRR, abs/2505.07961

    Zhang, X., Huang, Z., Ni, C., Xiong, Z., Chen, J., and Oymak, S. (2025a).Making Small Language Models Efficient Reasoners: Intervention, Supervision, Reinforcement.CoRR, abs/2505.07961. https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.07961

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.07961

  5. [5]

    (2026).Trade-offs in Large Reasoning Models: An Empirical Analysis of Deliberative and Adaptive Reasoning over Foundational Capabilities

    Zhao, W., Sui, X., Guo, J., Hu, Y ., Deng, Y ., Zhao, Y ., Zhi, X., Huang, Y ., He, H., Che, W., Liu, T., and Qin, B. (2026).Trade-offs in Large Reasoning Models: An Empirical Analysis of Deliberative and Adaptive Reasoning over Foundational Capabilities. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 34976–34984. AAAI Press.https:...

    work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v40i41.40802 2026

  6. [6]

    K., Wu, Y ., and Guo, D

    Shao, Z., Wang, P., Zhu, Q., Xu, R., Song, J., Zhang, M., Li, Y . K., Wu, Y ., and Guo, D. (2024). DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models.CoRR, abs/2402.03300.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.03300

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.03300 2024

  7. [7]

    M., and Titov, I

    Huang, Z., Cheng, T., Qiu, Z., Wang, Z., Xu, Y ., Ponti, E. M., and Titov, I. (2025).Blending Supervised and Reinforcement Fine-Tuning with Prefix Sampling.CoRR, abs/2507.01679. https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2507.01679

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.01679 2025

  8. [8]

    Setlur, A., Wang, Z., Cohen, A., Rashidinejad, P., and Xie, S. M. (2026).Reuse your FLOPs: Scaling RL on Hard Problems by Conditioning on Very Off-Policy Prefixes.CoRR, abs/2601.18795. https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.18795

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.18795 2026

  9. [9]

    (2026).Well Begun, Half Done: Reinforcement Learning with Prefix Optimization for LLM Reasoning

    Sun, Y ., Zhao, Z., Wei, Y ., Zhang, Y ., and Gong, C. (2026).Well Begun, Half Done: Reinforcement Learning with Prefix Optimization for LLM Reasoning. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 33144–33152. AAAI Press.https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v40i39.40598

    work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v40i39.40598 2026

  10. [10]

    (2025).AgentGym-RL: Training LLM Agents for Long-Horizon Decision Making through Multi-Turn Reinforcement Learning.CoRR, abs/2509.08755.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.08755

    Xi, Z., Huang, J., Liao, C., Huang, B., Guo, H., Liu, J., Zheng, R., Ye, J., Zhang, J., Chen, W., He, W., Ding, Y ., Li, G., Chen, Z., Du, Z., Yao, X., Xu, Y ., Chen, J., Gui, T., Wu, Z., Zhang, Q., Huang, X., and Jiang, Y .-G. (2025).AgentGym-RL: Training LLM Agents for Long-Horizon Decision Making through Multi-Turn Reinforcement Learning.CoRR, abs/2509...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.08755 2025

  11. [11]

    (2025).AgentDistill: Training-Free Agent Distillation with Generalizable MCP Boxes.CoRR, abs/2506.14728.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.14728

    Qiu, J., Juan, X., Wang, Y ., Yang, L., Qi, X., Zhang, T., Guo, J., Lu, Y ., Yao, Z., Wang, H., Liu, S., Jiang, X., Leqi, L., and Wang, M. (2025).AgentDistill: Training-Free Agent Distillation with Generalizable MCP Boxes.CoRR, abs/2506.14728.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.14728

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.14728 2025

  12. [12]

    Inference-Time Distillation: Cost-Efficient Agents Without Fine-Tuning or Manual Prompt Engineering

    Sarukkai, V ., Gupta, A., Hong, J., Gharbi, M., and Fatahalian, K. (2025).In-Context Distillation with Self- Consistency Cascades: A Simple, Training-Free Way to Reduce LLM Agent Costs.CoRR, abs/2512.02543. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2512.02543

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.02543 2025

  13. [13]

    D., Batra, S

    Zhang, D., Yang, Z., Janghorbani, S., Han, J., Ressler, A., Qian, Q., Lyng, G. D., Batra, S. S., and Tillman, R. E. (2026).Fast and Effective On-policy Distillation from Reasoning Prefixes.CoRR, abs/2602.15260. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.15260

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.15260 2026

  14. [14]

    (2024).AgentGym: Evolving Large Language Model-based Agents across Diverse Environments.CoRR, abs/2406.04151

    Xi, Z., Ding, Y ., Chen, W., Hong, B., Guo, H., Wang, J., Yang, D., Liao, C., Guo, X., He, W., Gao, S., Chen, L., Zheng, R., Zou, Y ., Gui, T., Zhang, Q., Qiu, X., Huang, X., Wu, Z., and Jiang, Y .-G. (2024).AgentGym: Evolving Large Language Model-based Agents across Diverse Environments.CoRR, abs/2406.04151. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.04151 10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.04151 2024

  15. [15]

    (2024).ADaPT: As-Needed Decomposition and Planning with Language Models

    Prasad, A., Koller, A., Hartmann, M., Clark, P., Sabharwal, A., Bansal, M., and Khot, T. (2024).ADaPT: As-Needed Decomposition and Planning with Language Models. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024, pages 4226–4252. Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-naacl.264

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-naacl.264 2024

  16. [16]

    (2021).ALFWorld: Aligning Text and Embodied Environments for Interactive Learning

    Shridhar, M., Yuan, X., Cote, M.-A., Bisk, Y ., Trischler, A., and Hausknecht, M. (2021).ALFWorld: Aligning Text and Embodied Environments for Interactive Learning. InProceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations. OpenReview.net. https://openreview.net/forum?id= 0IOX0YcCdTn

    2021

  17. [17]

    H., and Bengio, Y

    Chevalier-Boisvert, M., Bahdanau, D., Lahlou, S., Willems, L., Saharia, C., Nguyen, T. H., and Bengio, Y . (2018).BabyAI: First Steps Towards Grounded Language Learning with a Human In the Loop.CoRR, abs/1810.08272.http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.08272

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    and Ammanabrolu, P

    Wang, R. and Ammanabrolu, P. (2025).A Practitioner’s Guide to Multi-turn Agentic Reinforcement Learning.CoRR, abs/2510.01132.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.01132

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.01132 2025

  19. [19]

    L., Hou, Z., Qi, Z., Lai, H., Xu, Y ., Lu, R., Wang, H., Tang, J., and Dong, Y

    Zhang, H., Liu, X., Lv, B., Sun, X., Jing, B., Iong, I. L., Hou, Z., Qi, Z., Lai, H., Xu, Y ., Lu, R., Wang, H., Tang, J., and Dong, Y . (2025b).AgentRL: Scaling Agentic Reinforcement Learning with a Multi-Turn, Multi-Task Framework.CoRR, abs/2510.04206.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.04206

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.04206

  20. [20]

    (2025).RLFactory: A Plug-and-Play Reinforcement Learning Post-Training Framework for LLM Multi-Turn Tool-Use.CoRR, abs/2509.06980.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.06980

    Chai, J., Yin, G., Xu, Z., Yue, C., Jia, Y ., Xia, S., Wang, X., Jiang, J., Li, X., Dong, C., He, H., and Lin, W. (2025).RLFactory: A Plug-and-Play Reinforcement Learning Post-Training Framework for LLM Multi-Turn Tool-Use.CoRR, abs/2509.06980.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.06980

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.06980 2025

  21. [21]

    (2025).Agentic Reinforced Policy Optimization.CoRR, abs/2507.19849

    Dong, G., Mao, H., Ma, K., Bao, L., Chen, Y ., Wang, Z., Chen, Z., Du, J., Wang, H., Zhang, F., Zhou, G., Zhu, Y ., Wen, J.-R., and Dou, Z. (2025).Agentic Reinforced Policy Optimization.CoRR, abs/2507.19849. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.19849

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.19849 2025

  22. [22]

    N., Liu, L., Gottlieb, E., Lu, Y ., Cho, K., Wu, J., Fei-Fei, L., Wang, L., Choi, Y ., and Li, M

    Wang, Z., Wang, K., Wang, Q., Zhang, P., Li, L., Yang, Z., Jin, X., Yu, K., Nguyen, M. N., Liu, L., Gottlieb, E., Lu, Y ., Cho, K., Wu, J., Fei-Fei, L., Wang, L., Choi, Y ., and Li, M. (2025).RAGEN: Understanding Self-Evolution in LLM Agents via Multi-Turn Reinforcement Learning.CoRR, abs/2504.20073. https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.20073

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.20073 2025

  23. [23]

    (2025).DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scale.CoRR, abs/2503.14476.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.14476

    Yu, Q., Zhang, Z., Zhu, R., Yuan, Y ., Zuo, X., Yue, Y ., Fan, T., Liu, G., Liu, L., Liu, X., Lin, H., Lin, Z., Ma, B., Sheng, G., Tong, Y ., Zhang, C., Zhang, M., Zhang, W., Zhu, H., Zhu, J., Chen, J., Chen, J., Wang, C., Yu, H., Dai, W., Song, Y ., Wei, X., Zhou, H., Liu, J., Ma, W.-Y ., Zhang, Y .-Q., Yan, L., Qiao, M., Wu, Y ., and Wang, M. (2025).DAP...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.14476 2025

  24. [24]

    (2025).DRPO: Efficient Reasoning via Decoupled Reward Policy Optimization.CoRR, abs/2510.04474.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.04474

    Li, G., Chen, Y ., Lin, M., and Yang, T. (2025).DRPO: Efficient Reasoning via Decoupled Reward Policy Optimization.CoRR, abs/2510.04474.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.04474

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.04474 2025

  25. [25]

    Kim, M., Shrestha, S., and Ross, K. W. (2026).Training Reasoning Models on Saturated Problems via Failure-Prefix Conditioning.CoRR, abs/2601.20829. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601. 20829

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.20829 2026

  26. [26]

    (2026).A Step Back: Prefix Importance Ratio Stabilizes Policy Optimization

    Lei, S., Cheng, Z., and Tao, D. (2026).A Step Back: Prefix Importance Ratio Stabilizes Policy Optimization. CoRR, abs/2601.22718.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.22718

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.22718 2026

  27. [27]

    (2025a).Recall-Extend Dynamics: Enhancing Small Language Models through Controlled Exploration and Refined Offline Integration.CoRR, abs/2508.16677

    Guan, Z., Wu, L., Zhao, H., Wang, J., and Wu, L. (2025a).Recall-Extend Dynamics: Enhancing Small Language Models through Controlled Exploration and Refined Offline Integration.CoRR, abs/2508.16677. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.16677

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.16677

  28. [28]

    (2025b).Attention Mechanisms Perspective: Exploring LLM Processing of Graph-Structured Data.CoRR, abs/2505.02130

    Guan, Z., Wu, L., Zhao, H., He, M., and Fan, J. (2025b).Attention Mechanisms Perspective: Exploring LLM Processing of Graph-Structured Data.CoRR, abs/2505.02130. https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2505.02130

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.02130

  29. [29]

    (2025c).Enhancing Collaborative Semantics of Language Model-Driven Recommendations via Graph-Aware Learning.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering

    Guan, Z., Wu, L., Zhao, H., He, M., and Fan, J. (2025c).Enhancing Collaborative Semantics of Language Model-Driven Recommendations via Graph-Aware Learning.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. IEEE

  30. [30]

    (2025).Multi-view Empowered Structural Graph Wordification for Language Models

    Liu, Z., Wu, L., He, M., Guan, Z., Zhao, H., and Feng, N. (2025).Multi-view Empowered Structural Graph Wordification for Language Models. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, number 23, pages 24714–24722

    2025

  31. [31]

    Missing Old Logits in Asynchronous Agentic RL: Semantic Mismatch and Repair Methods for Off-Policy Correction

    Guan, Z., Guo, Y ., Sun, H., Huang, W., Di, S., Wu, L., Wu, X. J., and Zhao, H. (2026).Missing Old Logits in Asynchronous Agentic RL: Semantic Mismatch and Repair Methods for Off-Policy Correction.CoRR, abs/2605.12070.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.12070 11 Supplementary Material for Replayed Prefix Optimization for Small-Model Agents A Datasets. . ....

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.12070 2026

  32. [32]

    THINK FIRST: before any action, analyze the current state

  33. [33]

    ONE ACTION: output exactly one action per turn

  34. [34]

    BOX FORMAT: wrap your command in [[ ]], e.g., Action: [[ inventory ]]

  35. [35]

    REASONING LOGIC: When trying to acquire an item [Target]:

    NO HALLUCINATION: do not simulate the environment response. REASONING LOGIC: When trying to acquire an item [Target]:

  36. [36]

    If you already have [Target], proceed

    Check inventory. If you already have [Target], proceed

  37. [37]

    If [Target] has a recipe, get missing ingredients first

    Check recipe. If [Target] has a recipe, get missing ingredients first

  38. [38]

    If [Target] is a base material, use get [Target]

  39. [39]

    If get or craft fails, check recipes and exact item names again. CORE COMMAND SET: - craft [target] using [ingredients] - get [item] - inventory INTERACTION EXAMPLE: [Environment] Goal: craft powered rail Recipes: - craft 6 powered rail using 1 redstone, 1 stick, 6 gold ingot - craft 1 gold ingot using 9 gold nugget - craft 1 stick using 2 bamboo [You] Th...