arXiv:2504.13145cs.AI2025-04被引 7

利用专家失败轨迹中的有效动作,提升大模型智能体的训练效果。

Exploring Expert Failures Improves LLM Agent Tuning

  • 从专家失败轨迹中提取有用动作,补充到训练数据中
  • 在WebShop任务中达到62%胜率,超越RFT和GPT-4
  • 适合希望提升复杂任务代理性能的研究者

大型语言模型(LLMs)在需要多轮推理与交互的任务中展现出巨大潜力。拒绝采样微调(RFT)是一种有效方法:先模仿专家生成的成功轨迹,再通过自生成成功轨迹进行迭代微调。然而,由于专家主要在简单子任务上成功,而RFT倾向于简单场景,许多复杂子任务仍无法解决且持续处于分布外(OOD)。我们发现,先前失败的专家轨迹常包含有价值的规划与关键动作,能显著提升智能体探索效率和关键技能获取。受此启发,我们提出探索专家失败(EEF),识别并整合失败轨迹中有益动作至训练集,同时严格排除潜在有害动作以防污染学习过程。通过利用专家失败中的有益动作,EEF成功解决了部分此前无法解决的子任务,并提升整体代理训练性能。令人瞩目的是,该方法在WebShop任务中实现62%胜率,优于RFT(53.6%)和GPT-4(35.6%),据我们所知,首次在WebShop上突破0.81得分,且在SciWorld中超过81分,创下新纪录。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown tremendous potential as agents, excelling at tasks that require multiple rounds of reasoning and interactions. Rejection Sampling Fine-Tuning (RFT) has emerged as an effective method for finetuning LLMs as agents: it first imitates expert-generated successful trajectories and further improves agentic skills through iterative fine-tuning on successful, self-generated trajectories. However, since the expert (e.g., GPT-4) succeeds primarily on simpler subtasks and RFT inherently favors simpler scenarios, many complex subtasks remain unsolved and persistently out-of-distribution (OOD). Upon investigating these challenging subtasks, we discovered that previously failed expert trajectories can often provide valuable guidance, e.g., plans and key actions, that can significantly improve agent exploration efficiency and acquisition of critical skills. Motivated by these observations, we propose Exploring Expert Failures (EEF), which identifies beneficial actions from failed expert trajectories and integrates them into the training dataset. Potentially harmful actions are meticulously excluded to prevent contamination of the model learning process. By leveraging the beneficial actions in expert failures, EEF successfully solves some previously unsolvable subtasks and improves agent tuning performance. Remarkably, our approach achieved a 62\% win rate in WebShop, outperforming RFT (53. 6\%) and GPT-4 (35. 6\%), and to the best of our knowledge, setting a new state-of-the-art as the first method to surpass a score of 0.81 in WebShop and exceed 81 in SciWorld.

大模型代理失败分析强化学习任务求解

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。