Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study empirically analyzes the limitations of post-training capabilities in large language model (LLM) agents, distinguishing between execution-level and strategy-level capabilities. By examining a large corpus of post-training trajectories, the authors reveal that LLM agents tend to lock in their training strategies early on, spending the remainder of their resources on local adjustments rather than revising their high-level strategies. The findings indicate that while experience-driven scaffolds and human guidance can enhance execution performance, they fail to address the fundamental issue of agents lacking a mechanism for reevaluating their training strategies during execution.
LLM agents are stuck in local adjustment loops, unable to adapt their training strategies despite having the resources to do so.
Large language model (LLM) agents can now post-train an LLM end-to-end. They can write code, launch training, evaluate checkpoints, and improve downstream performance, raising the prospect of AI-for-AI. We argue that this picture conflates two distinct capabilities: execution-level capability, iterating within a selected training strategy; and strategy-level capability, revising the high-level judgment as experimental evidence accumulates. Analyzing a large corpus of publicly released post-training trajectories, we find that across different tasks, the agent's training strategy is locked in at the very beginning, and the entire remaining budget is spent on local adjustments within the selected strategy. We then examine three natural explanations--missing experience, missing guidance, and insufficient reasoning--with escalating interventions. Extensive experiments show that (1) an experience-driven scaffold improves execution across the board (+12.6 points on GSM8K and +40.8 on HumanEval) but leaves the strategy static; (2) human guidance effectively redirects the initial strategy, yet the agent falls back into local adjustment loops once training starts; and (3) additional inference compute pays off on easier tasks but yields almost no gain on the hardest one. In conclusion, what agents lack is neither experience, guidance, nor reasoning compute, but a mechanism for spontaneously reevaluating their strategy during execution.
Tsinghua AI