Environmental Feedback Modeling Matters: Rethinking Feedback Treatment in Agentic Hindsight Self-Distillation

Hangxi Guo; Fengyuan Liu; Yue Wang; Yuhua Qi; Haoyi Xiong; Fei Sun; Mengnan Du

cs.AIOct 8, 2026

Environmental Feedback Modeling Matters: Rethinking Feedback Treatment in Agentic Hindsight Self-Distillation

Authors: Hangxi Guo, Fengyuan Liu, Yue Wang, Yuhua Qi, Haoyi Xiong, Fei Sun, Mengnan Du

Organizations: The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen · Shanghai AI Laboratory · University of Science and Technology of China · Independent · Institute of Computing Technology, CAS

Abstract

Reinforcement learning is commonly used to train language agents in interactive environments, but cannot be directly applied when rewards are unavailable. Recent methods use environmental feedback as privileged context for hindsight self-distillation, but our analysis suggests that simply conditioning the teacher on feedback is insufficient, motivating us to rethink how environmental feedback is used in agentic self-distillation. Given that environmental feedback contains rich supervision for modeling how the environment responds to agent actions, we introduce \textit{agentic SElf-distilLation with environmental Feedback modeling} (SELF), a framework that jointly optimizes environmental feedback modeling and hindsight self-distillation. SELF learns to predict environmental responses while distilling guidance from a feedback-conditioned self-teacher into the policy. Our analysis reveals a mutually reinforcing mechanism: environmental feedback modeling strengthens hindsight supervision and policy learning, while self-distillation enhances the model's ability to model environmental feedback. With Qwen3-8B, SELF outperforms SDPO and GRPO by 6.4 and 4.1 percentage points in $τ$ -bench success rate, and by 10.71 and 3.57 percentage points in AppWorld task goal completion, respectively. These results show that SELF uses environmental feedback more effectively within agentic self-distillation, improving agent capabilities.

Figures & tables

Figure 1: Overview of SELF. The current policy interacts with the environment to collect transitions $(h_{i},a_{i},f_{i})$ . Each transition is used for two complementary objectives: hindsight self-distillation, where a feedback-conditioned EMA teacher supervises the student policy, and environmental feedback modeling, where the model predicts the realized feedback from the interaction history and action. The two objectives are jointly optimized to obtain the next-round policy.

Method	Sampling	Supervision	Feedback Source	Teacher	Env. Modeling
SFT	Off-policy	Dense	Teacher	External	No
GRPO	On-policy	Sparse	Verifier	None	No
Mem0	–	–	Environment	None	No
SDPO	On-policy	Dense	Environment	Self	No
SELF (Ours)	On-policy	Dense	Environment	Self	Yes

Table 1: Comparison of learning paradigms under the configurations considered in this work. Supervision describes the granularity of the learning signal. Teacher denotes the source of teacher supervision. Env. Modeling indicates whether an explicit objective predicts environmental responses from interaction histories and actions. Dashes indicate inapplicable attributes.

External Model Baselines
Method	Setting	$\tau$ -bench		AppWorld
Method	Setting	SR $\uparrow$	Turns $\downarrow$	TGC $\uparrow$	SGC $\uparrow$
Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct	–	33.6	11.9	31.55	12.50
Qwen3-4B-Instruct
Base	–	27.2 $\pm$ 1.4	10.5 $\pm$ 0.3	16.67 $\pm$ 1.19	5.36 $\pm$ 0.62
OEL	Observation	30.6 $\pm$ 1.5	10.9 $\pm$ 0.4	19.05 $\pm$ 1.43	6.25 $\pm$ 0.74

Table 2: Performance on

\tau

-bench and AppWorld. SR denotes the

\mathrm{pass}@4

success rate on

\tau

-bench, and Turns denotes the average number of interaction turns. TGC and SGC denote task goal completion and scenario goal completion on AppWorld, respectively. Observation and Full denote baseline feedback settings, while Reward denotes reward-based training. SELF learns from agent-generated actions and environmental observations, and its rows are shaded light blue. Higher SR, TGC, and SGC and lower Turns are better. Within each backbone, excluding external model baselines, the best means are bold with pale gold shading, and the second-best means are underlined with pale pink shading. Missing results and inapplicable settings are denoted by –.

Figure 2: Performance comparison on $\tau$ -bench Retail and AppWorld. (a) Success rate (SR, pass@4) gains of SELF over selected comparators on $\tau$ -bench Retail. Open and filled circles denote SELF and comparator scores, respectively; annotations and line colors indicate gains in percentage points. The superscript $\ddagger$ denotes Qwen3-8B; unmarked methods use Qwen3-4B-Instruct unless otherwise specified. (b) Task goal completion (TGC) and scenario goal completion (SGC) on AppWorld. Colors distinguish methods, and marker shapes distinguish model backbones.

Figure 3: Ablation studies and general capability evaluation with Qwen3-4B-Instruct. (a) Student and privileged teacher success rates (SR, pass@4) and average interaction turns on

\tau

-bench Retail across different values of

\lambda_{o}

. (b) Environmental feedback prediction accuracy on

\tau

-bench Retail and AppWorld across different values of

\lambda_{a}

. (c) Performance on MMLU, MMLU-Pro, and IFEval; SELF

{\dagger}

denotes the privileged teacher. Vertical dashed lines in (a) and (b) indicate default settings.

Setting	Student		Privileged teacher
Setting	SR $\uparrow$	Turns $\downarrow$	SR $\uparrow$	Turns $\downarrow$
Base	27.2 $\pm$ 1.4	10.5 $\pm$ 0.3	–	–
$\lambda_{o}=0$	29.4 $\pm$ 2.3	11.2 $\pm$ 0.5	30.1 $\pm$ 1.1	10.5 $\pm$ 0.2
$\lambda_{o}=0.1$	36.5 $\pm$ 0.9	10.8 $\pm$ 0.4	49.1 $\pm$ 1.8	12.1 $\pm$ 0.6
$\lambda_{o}=0.2$	38.7 $\pm$ 1.5	10.4 $\pm$ 0.4	46.7 $\pm$ 2.4	10.9 $\pm$ 0.4
$\lambda_{o}=0.5$	35.7 $\pm$ 2.1	12.5 $\pm$ 0.6	44.0 $\pm$ 1.3	10.7 $\pm$ 0.3

Table 3: Effect of the environmental feedback modeling weight

\lambda_{o}

\tau

-bench Retail with Qwen3-4B-Instruct. SR is reported as pass@4 (%), and Turns denotes the average number of interaction turns. Bold indicates the best result in each column.

Setting	$\tau$ -bench Retail			AppWorld
Setting	SR $\uparrow$	Turns $\downarrow$	Acc. $\uparrow$	TGC $\uparrow$	SGC $\uparrow$	Acc. $\uparrow$
Base	27.2 $\pm$ 1.4	10.5 $\pm$ 0.3	32 $\pm$ 1.8	16.67 $\pm$ 1.19	5.36 $\pm$ 0.62	11 $\pm$ 1.3
$\lambda_{a}=0$	20.1 $\pm$ 2.1	11.2 $\pm$ 0.5	37 $\pm$ 2.6	5.52 $\pm$ 0.83	1.21 $\pm$ 0.34	9 $\pm$ 1.7
$\lambda_{a}=0.1$	31.5 $\pm$ 1.3	12.0 $\pm$ 0.6	55 $\pm$ 1.5	26.67 $\pm$ 2.07	8.62 $\pm$ 0.91	39 $\pm$ 2.4
$\lambda_{a}=0.2$	33.2 $\pm$ 1.8	10.7 $\pm$ 0.3	62 $\pm$ 2.2	29.91 $\pm$ 1.43	8.45 $\pm$ 1.16	47 $\pm$ 1.6
$\lambda_{a}=0.5$	36.5 $\pm$ 0.9	10.2 $\pm$ 0.2	68 $\pm$ 1.3	31.10 $\pm$ 1.86	9.73 $\pm$ 0.78	54 $\pm$ 2.1

Table 4: Effect of the self-distillation weight

\lambda_{a}

\tau

-bench Retail and AppWorld with Qwen3-4B-Instruct. SR is reported as pass@4, and Turns denotes the average number of interaction turns. All metrics except Turns are reported as percentages.

Method	Setting	MMLU $\uparrow$	MMLU-Pro $\uparrow$	IFEval $\uparrow$
Base	–	59.60 $\pm$ 0.18	34.38 $\pm$ 0.27	82.62 $\pm$ 0.35
GRPO	Reward	59.61 $\pm$ 0.24	34.25 $\pm$ 0.36	82.19 $\pm$ 0.48
SDPO	Observation	57.96 $\pm$ 0.31	31.02 $\pm$ 0.42	81.17 $\pm$ 0.53
SELF	Observation	59.57 $\pm$ 0.22	34.49 $\pm$ 0.33	82.61 $\pm$ 0.41
SELF (teacher)	Observation	59.71 $\pm$ 0.20	34.92 $\pm$ 0.29	82.58 $\pm$ 0.38

Table 5: General capability evaluation on MMLU, MMLU-Pro, and IFEval using Qwen3-4B-Instruct. Results are mean

\pm

standard deviation. Light and darker blue shading identify the SELF student and teacher, respectively. Higher is better; bold entries indicate the highest mean per column.

Appendix figures & tables4 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Hyperparameter	Qwen3-4B-Instruct	Qwen3-8B
Optimizer	AdamW
Learning rate	$3\times 10^{-4}$
Training batch size	16
LoRA rank $r$	16	96
LoRA alpha	32	128
LoRA dropout	0.05	0.05

Appendix

Table 6: Default SELF training configuration. Backbone-specific LoRA settings are listed separately; other settings are shared.

Condition	Retail		AppWorld
	SR $\uparrow$	Turns $\downarrow$	TGC $\uparrow$	SGC $\uparrow$
Base	27.1	10.7	17.00	5.56
GRPO	33.0	13.4	28.67	10.50
SELF (cross-rollout)	36.6	11.7	31.21	8.67
SELF (same-rollout)	38.6	10.3	32.16	12.44

Appendix

Table 7: Effect of coupling environmental feedback modeling and hindsight self-distillation on the same rollout with Qwen3-4B-Instruct. In the cross-rollout condition, feedback modeling uses intact transitions from independently collected rollouts, while hindsight self-distillation uses the original rollout. Results are from one run per condition. SR, TGC, and SGC are percentages, with higher values indicating better performance. Turns is interpreted alongside SR. Bold values indicate the best completion scores.

Method	GPU-hours	Wall time(h)
OEL	20.3	6.12
SDPO (Observation)	11.8	3.67
GRPO	41.2	12.46
SELF	16.4	4.93

Appendix

Table 8: Training costs for the main experiments in Table 1 using four NVIDIA A100 80 GB GPUs. Values are aggregated across the reported training runs and exclude final evaluation and additional ablations. Lower values indicate lower cost.

Figure 4: Illustrative prompting interfaces used in SELF. The student prompt

\mathrm{prompt}_{\mathrm{stu}}

generates the next action

a_{i}

from the interaction history

h_{i}

; the teacher prompt

\mathrm{prompt}_{\mathrm{tea}}

additionally conditions on the realized environmental feedback

f_{i}

as privileged hindsight information; and the environmental-feedback modeling prompt

\mathrm{prompt}_{\mathrm{env}}

predicts

f_{i}

from

h_{i}

and the current action

a_{i}

Explore similar work

HINT-SD: Targeted Hindsight Self-Distillation for Long-Horizon Agents
May 18, 2026Woongyeng Yeo, Yumin Choi, Taekyung Ki +1Credit Assignment in RL LLM Agent Training
KAIST
HERO: Hindsight-Enhanced Reflection from Environment Observations for Agentic Self-Distillation
Jun 10, 2026Haoran Liu, Yuwei Zhang, Xiyao Li +2Credit Assignment in RL On-Policy Distillation
University of California, San Diego · Independent Researcher · University of California, Berkeley
What and When to Distill: Selective Hindsight Distillation for Multi-Turn Agents
May 19, 2026Xiaozhe Li, Tianyi Lyu, Yang Li +6Reinforcement Learning Credit Assignment in RL
1Tongji University · 2Shanghai AI Laboratory · 5Independent +2

May 18, 2026, cs.LGJ/K move · Enter open · S save

HINT-SD: Targeted Hindsight Self-Distillation for Long-Horizon Agents

Woongyeng Yeo, Yumin Choi, Taekyung Ki, Sung Ju Hwang

KAIST

Credit Assignment in RL LLM Agent Training Long-Horizon LLM Agents Knowledge Distillation

Open paper AskPDF arXiv

Training long-horizon LLM agents with reinforcement learning is challenging because sparse outcome rewards reveal whether a task succeeds, but not which intermediate actions caused the outcome or how they should be corrected. Recent methods alleviate this issue by generating rewards or textual hints from turn-level action-output signals, or by using feedback-conditioned self-distillation. However, generating feedback at every turn is inefficient when many intermediate turns are already successful or neutral, and applying feedback at a fixed or misaligned turn often fails to supervise the actions that contributed to the failure. To bridge this gap, we propose HINT-SD, a targeted self-distillation framework that uses full-trajectory hindsight to select failure-relevant actions and applies feedback-conditioned distillation only on targeted action spans. Experiments on BFCL v3 and AppWorld show that our method improves over the dense per-turn feedback baseline by up to 18.80 percent while achieving 2.26

\times

lower time per training step, suggesting that selecting where to distill is a key factor for both effective and efficient long-horizon agent training.

Abstract

Explore similar work

HINT-SD: Targeted Hindsight Self-Distillation for Long-Horizon Agents

HERO: Hindsight-Enhanced Reflection from Environment Observations for Agentic Self-Distillation

What and When to Distill: Selective Hindsight Distillation for Multi-Turn Agents