Papers
arxiv:2611.06483

What Does Multi-Turn Reinforcement Learning Really Improve in LLM Agents?

Published on Nov 4
· Submitted by
zkj
on Nov 5
Authors:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,

Abstract

While multi-turn agentic reinforcement learning (RL) excels on long-horizon tasks, its performance gains remain highly sensitive to interaction constraints. Evaluating across sampling breadth K and interaction depth T via Pass@(K,T), we show that trajectory-level RL advantages depend on sufficient turn budgets, diminishing significantly when budgets tighten. Besides, agentic RL does not uniformly elevate single-step decision quality; rather, its strength concentrates in error recovery and long-horizon resilience. To mitigate the deployment risks caused by this budget dependence, we provide a preliminary discussion on the benefits and limitations of process supervision signals and introduce BudgetMix RL as an alternative that varies interaction budgets during training. Experiments demonstrate that BudgetMix RL achieves robust performance across diverse execution settings. Project Page: https://rethinking-agentic-rl.github.io/

Community

Paper submitter

While multi-turn agentic reinforcement learning (RL) excels on long-horizon tasks, its performance gains remain highly sensitive to interaction constraints. Evaluating across sampling breadth K and interaction depth T via Pass@(K,T), we show that trajectory-level RL advantages depend on sufficient turn budgets, diminishing significantly when budgets tighten. Besides, agentic RL does not uniformly elevate single-step decision quality; rather, its strength concentrates in error recovery and long-horizon resilience. To mitigate the deployment risks caused by this budget dependence, we provide a preliminary discussion on the benefits and limitations of process supervision signals and introduce BudgetMix RL as an alternative that varies interaction budgets during training. Experiments demonstrate that BudgetMix RL achieves robust performance across diverse execution settings.

Really useful framing. Pass@(K,T) makes visible something that plain trajectory-level success rates hide. The BFCL row in Table 1 stood out to me: at a 25% turn budget, GRPO-Full on Qwen3-4B lands at 2.5 versus 3.0 for the base model, while BudgetMix reaches 8.5. Since BudgetMix puts the total and remaining budget in the prompt, I'm curious how it behaves when the cap isn't announced, which is common in real deployments where the limit is a timeout or a cost ceiling. Does it learn a generally more careful early policy, or does it mostly condition on the stated budget?

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2611.06483
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2611.06483 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2611.06483 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2611.06483 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 1