Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

ARIA: Training Language Agents with Intention-Driven Reward Aggregation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 ARIA claims that replacing token-level rewards with intention-cluster-averaged rewards reduces policy-gradient variance and yields average 9.95% performance gains across four open-ended language-agent tasks.

desk verdict Empirically promising reward-aggregation method whose central variance-reduction theorem rests on a false proof step; the experiments are worth a serious look, the theory is not. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00539 v2 pith:N77TD7SH submitted 2025-05-31 cs.CL

Ruihan Yang , Yikai Zhang , Aili Chen , Xintao Wang , Siyu Yuan , Jiangjie Chen , Deqing Yang , Yanghua Xiao This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords languageagentsreinforcementlearningrewardaggregationintentionspacesemanticprojectionvariancereductionhierarchicalclusteringpolicygradient
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 tries to establish that the reward sparsity and variance that cripple reinforcement learning for open-ended language agents can be tamed by aggregating rewards in an intention space rather than in the raw token space. It argues that semantically similar utterances rarely repeat in the exponentially large action space, so each sampled action receives a near-binary reward; grouping utterances by clustered embeddings and assigning the cluster-average reward densifies the signal. If true, language agents could be trained with far fewer samples and larger stable update steps. The paper reports an average 9.95% improvement over offline and online RL baselines across negotiation, bargaining, and two question-asking games, along with reduced reward variance and smoother convergence.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is semantic projection plus reward aggregation: actions and observations are embedded and hierarchically clustered into an intention space C_k, each history-action pair is replaced by its cluster labels, and the return for each intention pair becomes the average of all trajectory rewards that map to it. This aggregated advantage, A~ = E[A|C], is the engine of the argument: the law of total variance shows Var(A~) = Var(A) - E[Var(A|C)], and an epsilon-bisimulation condition (Definition 1) bounds the bias introduced by averaging. SplitScore selects the number of clusters k by stopping when reward changes from further splits fall below a threshold.

What would settle it

Measure, on real trajectories from the four tasks, the within-cluster dispersion E[Var(A|C)] and the total-variation distance between next-state distributions for actions assigned to the same intention cluster; if the clusters contain actions with materially different rewards or transition effects, the bias bound fails and the reported gains could come from reward smoothing rather than from unbiased variance reduction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

ARIA's central discovery is that replacing each action's sparse, high-variance reward with the average reward of all actions sharing its intention cluster removes the intra-cluster variance E[Var(A|C)] from the policy gradient estimate, at a bias cost controlled by how epsilon-bisimilar actions within a cluster are. The authors construct the intention space by embedding actions and observations and running hierarchical agglomerative clustering; a SplitScore stopping rule selects the cluster count by measuring whether further splits change the aggregated rewards. Training is offline REINFORCE on the aggregated advantages. The paper reports consistent wins across four tasks and across Llama and Qwen base models, with reward variance dropping and iterative retraining yielding further gains.

Load-bearing premise

The bias bound assumes that actions clustered together really are epsilon-bisimilar, meaning they have nearly identical rewards and next-state effects, but the paper never measures whether embedding-space clustering actually produces such clusters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Replacing raw advantages with cluster-averaged advantages reduces the variance of the policy-gradient estimate by removing the intra-cluster component E[Var(A|C)].
  • Offline REINFORCE with aggregated rewards outperforms BC, trajectory-wise DPO, step-wise DPO, SPAG, ArCHer, and StarPO by an average of 9.95% across the four evaluated tasks.
  • Iterating ARIA yields additional gains: +3.27% after a second round and +1.85% after a third round of data collection and training.
  • An online version that learns a reward model from aggregated rewards reaches higher rewards faster than ArCHer and StarPO on single-agent games.
  • The gains transfer to Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct and Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct, not just the Llama-3-8B-Instruct policy model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The variance decomposition is algorithm-agnostic, so cluster-averaged advantages could likely be dropped into PPO, GRPO, or actor-critic pipelines, even though the paper only demonstrates it inside REINFORCE and its online reward-model variant.
  • A cheap diagnostic for practitioners is to compute E[Var(A|C)] on a held-out batch before training; if it is large, the bias bound in Theorem 4.2 is unlikely to hold and aggregation may hurt rather than help.
  • The assumption that intentions are discrete and well-separated suggests ARIA will help most where utterances naturally fall into a few strategic categories, such as negotiation, tutoring, or customer service, and least where every utterance is genuinely novel.
  • The online variant's periodic reward-model updates hint that cluster granularity should also be re-selected as the policy changes; a testable extension is to make k adaptive per iteration rather than fixed.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ARIA, a method for training language agents in open-ended language action tasks by embedding actions and observations, clustering them into a low-dimensional intention space, aggregating rewards within each intention cluster, and optimizing the policy with offline REINFORCE. The authors report consistent and substantial empirical gains over offline and online baselines across four tasks (Twenty Questions, Guess My City, Bargaining, Negotiation), including iterative improvements, ablations, generalization to other base models, and statistical significance tests. The paper also claims a theoretical guarantee that intention-space reward aggregation reduces the variance of the policy-gradient estimator and introduces only O(epsilon) bias, based on Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2 and Theorem 4.2.

Significance. If the variance-reduction claim were rigorously established, ARIA would be a valuable contribution to RL for language agents, since it addresses a concrete practical problem (sparse, high-variance rewards in open-ended language action spaces) and is supported by a broad empirical evaluation. The empirical work is a clear strength: the comparisons cover multiple task types, multiple opponent models, several baselines, ablations, and generalization experiments, and the reported gains are large and mostly statistically significant. However, the central theoretical mechanism -- the claimed reduction in policy-gradient variance -- rests on Lemma G.2, whose proof is algebraically invalid, and the bias bound in Theorem 4.2 is conditional on an epsilon-bisimulation assumption that is never measured or validated. The empirical plots in Section 6.1 measure reward variance, not the variance of the score-weighted advantage, so they do not directly support the theoretical claim. Overall, the empirical contribution is credible and useful, but the paper's central conceptual framing currently overstates what is proved.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix G, Lemma G.2 (and Lemma 4.2)] The proof of Lemma G.2 is mathematically invalid. Writing X = ∇logπ, the proof asserts the identity E[X^2 A^2] - E[X^2 A~^2] = E[E[X^2(A-A~)^2|C]] >= 0, but this identity holds only if E[X^2 A|C] = A~ E[X^2|C], i.e., if A and X^2 are conditionally uncorrelated given the cluster. Nothing in the setup guarantees this. In fact, even when A~ is the exact conditional mean E[A|C], replacing A by A~ can increase the variance of XA. A concrete counterexample is: two equally likely clusters, C1 with (X,A) = (2,0), (-1,1), and C2 with (X,A) = (-2,0), (1,1); then A~ = 0.5 in both clusters, E[XA] = 0, Var(XA) = 0.5, but E[XA~] = 0 and Var(XA~) = 0.625. Consequently, the variance-reduction claim in Lemma 4.2, and with it the convergence statement in Theorem 4.1, is not established.
  2. [Section 4.2, Definition 1, Theorem 4.2] The bounded-bias result is logically conditional on the assumption that all actions within each intention cluster are epsilon-bisimilar, but the paper never measures whether the embedding-space clusters actually satisfy this condition. The authors' own Appendix A concedes that clustering quality depends on the sentence embeddings and that misaligned clusters can impair learning. As a result, Theorem 4.2 provides a conditional statement, not evidence that the specific clustering used in the experiments has small bias. The paper should either validate the epsilon-bisimulation property empirically or substantially soften the claim that ARIA maintains 'a small bound of bias.'
  3. [Section 6.1, Figure 4] The empirical variance analysis reports the variance of the raw and aggregated reward signals, but the theoretical claim in Lemma 4.2 concerns the variance of the gradient estimator (∇logπ) * A. Reducing Var(A) does not imply reducing Var((∇logπ) * A), as the counterexample in the first major comment shows. Thus the plots in Figure 4 cannot substitute for the missing proof, and the statement in the Abstract and Section 1 that ARIA 'significantly reduces policy gradient variance' is only supported at the level of the reward signal, not the gradient estimator.
  4. [Section 3.3 and Section 4.1] The theoretical analysis treats A~ as the exact conditional expectation E[A|C], but the algorithm computes an empirical cluster average over a finite dataset of collected trajectories. The gap between the population object and the finite-sample estimator is not analyzed; in particular, clusters with few samples may produce noisy aggregated rewards, and the variance-reduction argument does not account for this estimation error. The paper should either prove a finite-sample version of Lemma 4.2 or explicitly describe the theory as applying to the idealized population version.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix J, Table 5] The table header uses γ=0.01 for what the text describes as the SplitScore threshold ϵ; this notational mismatch should be corrected throughout the appendix.
  2. [Appendix I.1] The online baseline is referred to as 'RAGEN(GRPO)' in one sentence but as 'StarPO' in the tables and elsewhere; please unify the naming.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typos and formatting errors, including 'langugae' in Section 5.1, 'accepdt' in Appendix M, and inconsistent use of 'Single-Agent Scenatio' in Appendix M headings; a careful proofreading pass is recommended.
  4. [Appendix C] The claim that SplitScore is 'bounded above a monotonically decreasing function' relies on n_{k,max} being monotonically decreasing, but this is asserted rather than proved for average-linkage hierarchical clustering; the statement should either be proved or made conditional.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the theoretical variance and bias statements are definitional or conditional, and the empirical gains are externally benchmarked.

full rationale

ARIA's derivation is not circular: the variance-reduction lemma (Lemma 4.1) is the law of total variance applied to a cluster-mean advantage, so it is a theorem, not a fitted input; the paper's performance gains are measured against external BC/DPO/PPO-style baselines on held-out configurations, giving the central claim independent content. The bias theorem (Theorem 4.2) is explicitly conditional on unvalidated ε-bisimulation and is a genuine implication, not a definitional equivalence; the Limitations section acknowledges the embedding-quality dependence. No load-bearing self-citation exists: the authors' prior works are background references and do not supply the aggregation argument or any uniqueness result. The main technical weakness is Appendix G, Lemma G.2, whose displayed identity equating E[X^2 A^2] − E[X^2 A~^2] with E[E[X^2(A−A~)^2|C]] is false in general; the policy-gradient variance-reduction theorem is therefore not established. This is a proof error, not circularity: the conclusion does not reduce to the definition of A~, so the derivation is unsupported rather than self-referential.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central method rests on the assumption that embedding-space similarity corresponds to task-relevant similarity, which is never validated. The main free parameter is the SplitScore threshold epsilon, selected by ablation on the same tasks. The discount factor used for temporal credit assignment is unreported, and the intention space is a constructed artifact without independent evidence.

free parameters (3)
  • SplitScore threshold epsilon = 0.01
    Threshold for early stopping in granularity selection; chosen after ablation on Bargaining and Negotiation (Appendix J, Table 5), not on a held-out validation set.
  • window size tau = 10
    Early stopping window; fixed without ablation.
  • discount factor gamma (temporal credit assignment) = not reported
    Used in R(ht,at)=gamma^(T-t) R in Section 3.3; no value is given in the hyperparameter table, despite being central to reward decay.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Actions and observations with similar sentence embeddings have similar rewards and transitions (epsilon-bisimulation).
    Invoked in Definition 1 and used to bound bias in Theorem 4.2; never empirically checked.
  • domain assumption Text-embedding-3-small captures the semantic distinctions that are task-relevant for clustering.
    Section 3.2 relies on the pretrained encoder to form intention clusters; acknowledged as a limitation in Appendix A.
  • standard math Standard POMDP and REINFORCE formulation.
    Sections 3.1 and 3.5 adopt the usual RL setup.
  • domain assumption Trajectories in the offline dataset are i.i.d. samples from the training distribution.
    Theorem 4.1 assumes N i.i.d. trajectories in the train set; the offline collection mixes self-play and fixed opponents, so this independence is approximate.
invented entities (1)
  • intention space C_k
    purpose: Low-dimensional latent space of semantic clusters over actions and observations, used to aggregate rewards and compress the action space.
    The clusters are derived from the same trajectories used for training; no external validation of the intention structure is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ARIA: Training Language Agents with Intention-Driven Reward Aggregation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N77TD7SH

@misc{pith2026250600539,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ARIA: Training Language Agents with Intention-Driven Reward Aggregation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N77TD7SH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00539}
}
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have enabled agents to perform complex reasoning and decision-making through free-form language interactions. However, in open-ended language action environments (e.g., negotiation or question-asking games), the action space can be formulated as a joint distribution over tokens, resulting in an exponentially large action space. Sampling actions in such a space can lead to extreme reward sparsity, which brings large reward variance, hindering effective reinforcement learning (RL). To address this, we propose ARIA, a method that Aggregates Rewards in Intention space to enable efficient and effective language Agents training. ARIA aims to project natural language actions from the high-dimensional joint token distribution space into a low-dimensional intention space, where semantically similar actions are clustered and assigned shared rewards. This intention-aware reward aggregation reduces reward variance by densifying reward signals, fostering better policy optimization. Extensive experiments demonstrate that ARIA not only significantly reduces policy gradient variance, but also delivers substantial performance gains of an average of 9.95% across four downstream tasks, consistently outperforming offline and online RL baselines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00539 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of ARIA. ARIA first lets agents interact to collect trajectories. Then it performs semantic projection and aggregates reward in the intention space, and finally updates the policy using the aggregated rewards. Training Language Agent with Reinforcement Learning Language agents often face ambiguous goals and sparse rewards, requiring adaptive long-term planning [1; 2; 3], which challenges decision￾making… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Clustering quality measured by SC, CHI, the reciprocal DBI and the average of three metrics. After normalization and averag￾ing, k = 2 achieves the highest overall score. Semantic clustering helps compress the free-form, un￾structured space of natural language actions and ob￾servations. However, selecting the appropriate granu￾larity k remains challenging. For example, in the con￾text of negotiation, we compute stan… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) and (b) show the reward curves of ARIA and other online methods over iterations on the Twenty Questions and Guess My City respectively. aggregation in the intention space, which reduces reward variance and significantly improves learning performance. ARIA continuously improves policy through iteration. After confirming that ARIA significantly outperforms the baselines, we further investigate its performance unde… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) illustrates the distribution of rewards. (b) presents the change in reward variance. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ablation of ARIA. (a) shows win rates on adversarial games and (b) shows training loss curves under different ablation settings in adversarial games. To evaluate whether reward aggregation improves training efficiency, we first compare the policy loss curves under diff…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Tree-like clustering result example of bargaining. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Unsupervised Learning for the Elementary Shortest Path Problem

    cs.LG 2025-08 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    The authors propose ESPP-NNAA, an unsupervised GNN that learns node values and edge probabilities to decode near-optimal elementary paths, though the stated certificate does not cover the full trained objective.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A survey on large language model based autonomous agents.Frontiers of Computer Science, 18(6):186345, 2024

    Lei Wang, Chen Ma, Xueyang Feng, Zeyu Zhang, Hao Yang, Jingsen Zhang, Zhiyuan Chen, Jiakai Tang, Xu Chen, Yankai Lin, et al. A survey on large language model based autonomous agents.Frontiers of Computer Science, 18(6):186345, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Large language model agent: A survey on methodology, applications and challenges.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21460, 2025

    Junyu Luo, Weizhi Zhang, Ye Yuan, Yusheng Zhao, Junwei Yang, Yiyang Gu, Bohan Wu, Binqi Chen, Ziyue Qiao, Qingqing Long, et al. Large language model agent: A survey on methodology, applications and challenges.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21460, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Cognitive architec- tures for language agents.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023

    Theodore Sumers, Shunyu Yao, Karthik Narasimhan, and Thomas Griffiths. Cognitive architec- tures for language agents.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    A real-world webagent with planning, long context understanding, and program synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.12856, 2023

    Izzeddin Gur, Hiroki Furuta, Austin Huang, Mustafa Safdari, Yutaka Matsuo, Douglas Eck, and Aleksandra Faust. A real-world webagent with planning, long context understanding, and program synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.12856, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Webarena: A realistic web environment for building autonomous agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13854, 2023

    Shuyan Zhou, Frank F Xu, Hao Zhu, Xuhui Zhou, Robert Lo, Abishek Sridhar, Xianyi Cheng, Tianyue Ou, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, et al. Webarena: A realistic web environment for building autonomous agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13854, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Scienceworld: Is your agent smarter than a 5th grader?arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.07540, 2022

    Ruoyao Wang, Peter Jansen, Marc-Alexandre Côté, and Prithviraj Ammanabrolu. Scienceworld: Is your agent smarter than a 5th grader?arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.07540, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    TimeArena: Shaping Efficient Multitasking Language Agents in a Time-Aware Simulation

    Yikai Zhang, Siyu Yuan, Caiyu Hu, Kyle Richardson, Yanghua Xiao, and Jiangjie Chen. Timearena: Shaping efficient multitasking language agents in a time-aware simulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05733, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Lmrl gym: Benchmarks for multi-turn reinforcement learning with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.18232, 2023

    Marwa Abdulhai, Isadora White, Charlie Snell, Charles Sun, Joey Hong, Yuexiang Zhai, Kelvin Xu, and Sergey Levine. Lmrl gym: Benchmarks for multi-turn reinforcement learning with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.18232, 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Evaluating language model agency through negotiations

    Tim R Davidson, Veniamin Veselovsky, Martin Josifoski, Maxime Peyrard, Antoine Bosselut, Michal Kosinski, and Robert West. Evaluating language model agency through negotiations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04536, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    How well can llms negotiate? negotiationarena platform and analysis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05863, 2024

    Federico Bianchi, Patrick John Chia, Mert Yuksekgonul, Jacopo Tagliabue, Dan Jurafsky, and James Zou. How well can llms negotiate? negotiationarena platform and analysis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05863, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Clin: A continually learning language agent for rapid task adaptation and generalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10134, 2023

    Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Bhavana Dalvi Mishra, Peter Jansen, Oyvind Tafjord, Niket Tandon, Li Zhang, Chris Callison-Burch, and Peter Clark. Clin: A continually learning language agent for rapid task adaptation and generalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10134, 2023

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Trial and error: Exploration-based trajectory optimization for llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02502, 2024

    Yifan Song, Da Yin, Xiang Yue, Jie Huang, Sujian Li, and Bill Yuchen Lin. Trial and error: Exploration-based trajectory optimization for llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02502, 2024. 10

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Watch every step! llm agent learning via iterative step-level process refinement.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11176, 2024

    Weimin Xiong, Yifan Song, Xiutian Zhao, Wenhao Wu, Xun Wang, Ke Wang, Cheng Li, Wei Peng, and Sujian Li. Watch every step! llm agent learning via iterative step-level process refinement.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11176, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Agent q: Advanced reasoning and learning for autonomous ai agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.07199, 2024

    Pranav Putta, Edmund Mills, Naman Garg, Sumeet Motwani, Chelsea Finn, Divyansh Garg, and Rafael Rafailov. Agent q: Advanced reasoning and learning for autonomous ai agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.07199, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Selfgoal: Your language agents already know how to achieve high-level goals

    Ruihan Yang, Jiangjie Chen, Yikai Zhang, Siyu Yuan, Aili Chen, Kyle Richardson, Yanghua Xiao, and Deqing Yang. Selfgoal: Your language agents already know how to achieve high-level goals. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Associ...

    2025

  8. [16]

    Alfworld: Aligning text and embodied environments for interactive learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03768, 2020

    Mohit Shridhar, Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Yonatan Bisk, Adam Trischler, and Matthew Hausknecht. Alfworld: Aligning text and embodied environments for interactive learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03768, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Webshop: Towards scalable real-world web interaction with grounded language agents, 2023

    Shunyu Yao, Howard Chen, John Yang, and Karthik Narasimhan. Webshop: Towards scalable real-world web interaction with grounded language agents, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Deal or no deal? end-to-end learning for negotiation dialogues.arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.05125, 2017

    Mike Lewis, Denis Yarats, Yann N Dauphin, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. Deal or no deal? end-to-end learning for negotiation dialogues.arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.05125, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Glee: A unified framework and benchmark for language-based economic environments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05254, 2024

    Eilam Shapira, Omer Madmon, Itamar Reinman, Samuel Joseph Amouyal, Roi Reichart, and Moshe Tennenholtz. Glee: A unified framework and benchmark for language-based economic environments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05254, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Archer: Training language model agents via hierarchical multi-turn rl.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19446, 2024

    Yifei Zhou, Andrea Zanette, Jiayi Pan, Sergey Levine, and Aviral Kumar. Archer: Training language model agents via hierarchical multi-turn rl.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19446, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Sweet-rl: Training multi-turn llm agents on collaborative reasoning tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15478, 2025

    Yifei Zhou, Song Jiang, Yuandong Tian, Jason Weston, Sergey Levine, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, and Xian Li. Sweet-rl: Training multi-turn llm agents on collaborative reasoning tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15478, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Williams

    Ronald J. Williams. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforce- ment learning.Machine Learning, 8:229–256, 1992

    1992

  16. [24]

    Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function.Journal of the American statistical association, 58(301):236–244, 1963

    Joe H Ward Jr. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function.Journal of the American statistical association, 58(301):236–244, 1963

    1963

  17. [25]

    Sotopia: Interactive evaluation for social intelligence in language agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11667, 2023

    Xuhui Zhou, Hao Zhu, Leena Mathur, Ruohong Zhang, Haofei Yu, Zhengyang Qi, Louis- Philippe Morency, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, Graham Neubig, et al. Sotopia: Interactive evaluation for social intelligence in language agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11667, 2023

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Multi- agent kto: Reinforcing strategic interactions of large language model in language game.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14225, 2025

    Rong Ye, Yongxin Zhang, Yikai Zhang, Haoyu Kuang, Zhongyu Wei, and Peng Sun. Multi- agent kto: Reinforcing strategic interactions of large language model in language game.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14225, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Avalonbench: Evaluating llms playing the game of avalon.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05036, 2023

    Jonathan Light, Min Cai, Sheng Shen, and Ziniu Hu. Avalonbench: Evaluating llms playing the game of avalon.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05036, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Self-playing adversarial language game enhances llm reasoning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:126515–126543, 2024

    Pengyu Cheng, Tianhao Hu, Han Xu, Zhisong Zhang, Yong Dai, Lei Han, Xiaolong Li, et al. Self-playing adversarial language game enhances llm reasoning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:126515–126543, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Gameeval: Evaluating llms on conversational games.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10032, 2023

    Dan Qiao, Chenfei Wu, Yaobo Liang, Juntao Li, and Nan Duan. Gameeval: Evaluating llms on conversational games.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10032, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Least squares quantization in pcm.IEEE transactions on information theory, 28(2):129–137, 1982

    Stuart Lloyd. Least squares quantization in pcm.IEEE transactions on information theory, 28(2):129–137, 1982

    1982

  23. [31]

    A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise

    Martin Ester, Hans-Peter Kriegel, Jörg Sander, Xiaowei Xu, et al. A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. Inkdd, volume 96, pages 226–231, 1996. 11

    1996

  24. [32]

    Prism: Self-pruning intrinsic selection method for training-free multimodal data selection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12119, 2025

    Jinhe Bi, Yifan Wang, Danqi Yan, Xun Xiao, Artur Hecker, V olker Tresp, and Yunpu Ma. Prism: Self-pruning intrinsic selection method for training-free multimodal data selection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12119, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:53728–53741, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Kto: Model alignment as prospect theoretic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01306, 2024

    Kawin Ethayarajh, Winnie Xu, Niklas Muennighoff, Dan Jurafsky, and Douwe Kiela. Kto: Model alignment as prospect theoretic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01306, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024

    Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Y Wu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Cot-kinetics: A theoretical modeling assessing lrm reasoning process.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13408, 2025

    Jinhe Bi, Danqi Yan, Yifan Wang, Wenke Huang, Haokun Chen, Guancheng Wan, Mang Ye, Xun Xiao, Hinrich Schuetze, V olker Tresp, et al. Cot-kinetics: A theoretical modeling assessing lrm reasoning process.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13408, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Methods of hierarchical clustering.arXiv preprint arXiv:1105.0121, 2011

    Fionn Murtagh and Pedro Contreras. Methods of hierarchical clustering.arXiv preprint arXiv:1105.0121, 2011

    2011 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis.Journal of computational and applied mathematics, 20:53–65, 1987

    Peter J Rousseeuw. Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis.Journal of computational and applied mathematics, 20:53–65, 1987

    1987

  31. [39]

    A dendrite method for cluster analysis.Communications in Statistics-theory and Methods, 3(1):1–27, 1974

    Tadeusz Cali´nski and Jerzy Harabasz. A dendrite method for cluster analysis.Communications in Statistics-theory and Methods, 3(1):1–27, 1974

    1974

  32. [40]

    A cluster separation measure.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, (2):224–227, 2009

    David L Davies and Donald W Bouldin. A cluster separation measure.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, (2):224–227, 2009

    2009

  33. [41]

    J. L. W. V . Jensen. Sur les fonctions convexes et les inégalités entre les valeurs moyennes.Acta Mathematica, 30:175–193, 1906

    1906

  34. [42]

    Training agents by reinforcing reasoning, 2025

    Zihan Wang*, Kangrui Wang*, Qineng Wang*, Pingyue Zhang*, Linjie Li*, Zhengyuan Yang, Kefan Yu, Minh Nhat Nguyen, Licheng Liu, Eli Gottlieb, Monica Lam, Yiping Lu, Kyunghyun Cho, Jiajun Wu, Li Fei-Fei, Lijuan Wang, Yejin Choi, and Manling Li. Training agents by reinforcing rea...

    2025

  35. [43]

    Glee: A unified framework and benchmark for language-based economic environments, 2024

    Eilam Shapira, Omer Madmon, Itamar Reinman, Samuel Joseph Amouyal, Roi Reichart, and Moshe Tennenholtz. Glee: A unified framework and benchmark for language-based economic environments, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Llama 3 model card

    Meta. Llama 3 model card. 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Text and code embeddings by contrastive pre-training, 2022

    Arvind Neelakantan, Tao Xu, Raul Puri, Alec Radford, Jesse Michael Han, Jerry Tworek, Qiming Yuan, Nikolas Tezak, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Johannes Heidecke, Pranav Shyam, Boris Power, Tyna Eloundou Nekoul, Girish Sastry, Gretchen Krueger, David Schnurr, Felipe Petroski S...

    2022

  38. [46]

    Gpt-4 technical report, 2023

    OpenAI. Gpt-4 technical report, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Introducing claude 2.1, Nov 2023

    Anthropic. Introducing claude 2.1, Nov 2023. Available from Anthropic: https://www. anthropic.com/news/claude-2-1

    2023

  40. [48]

    Zhang, Han Bao, Hanwei Xu, Haocheng Wang, Haowei Zhang, Honghui Ding, Huajian Xin, Huazuo Gao, Hui Li, Hui Qu, J

    DeepSeek-AI, Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, Damai Dai, Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Deli Chen, Dongjie Ji, Erhang Li, Fangyun Lin, Fucong Dai, Fuli Luo, Guangbo Hao, Guanting Chen, Guowei L...

    2025

  41. [49]

    Qwen2.5: A party of foundation models, September 2024

    Qwen Team. Qwen2.5: A party of foundation models, September 2024. 13 Appendix A Limitations While ARIA shows strong performance across various single-agent and adversarial tasks, it relies on clustering in the semantic embedding space to define intention groups, which introduc...

    2024

  42. [50]

    If nk = 0 or ¯δk = 0, then SplitScore(k) = 0, indicating that the split causes no reward change

  43. [51]

    Ifn k =n k,max and ¯δk = 1, the split results in the maximum possible total reward change. Therefore, the decay ofSplitScoreprovides a natural criterion for early stopping, as it reflects diminishing changes in the reward signal expressivity with respect to further semantic pa...

Pith tools

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