Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for multi-turn agentic tasks that require interactions with users and environments over extended sequences of actions. A common approach to improving LLM agents is to use more capable expert models to provide training supervision, either by behavior cloning the expert's trajectories or by using the expert to correct the actions in trajectories generated by the weaker student model. However, expert LLMs can provide richer supervision than actions alone: they can directly generate textual critique that explain why specific actions are incorrect. We study whether training on such feedback benefits LLM agents and propose Critique-Augmented Agentic Fine-Tuning (CAFT), a framework that elicits textual expert feedback on student-generated trajectories. For each incorrect action, the expert yields both a corrected action and a textual critique explaining the student's mistake--which we then use as the training target for fine-tuning. Across four student models from the Nemotron 3 and Gemma 4 families on the agentic domains τ2-Bench Airline+Retail and WebShop, adding critiques to action-level supervision improves performance by 8% on average over action-only distillation. Additionally, CAFT checkpoints can also provide a better warm start for reinforcement learning than expert-trajectory distillation. Our results demonstrate that textual critiques can strengthen supervision for multi-turn LLM agents.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of CAFT. (a) The student model is rolled out and an expert labels every agent turn, writing a critique ct and a corrected action a~t for each incorrect turn. (b) Action distillation replaces the incorrect step with a~t while CAFT keeps the incorrect step in context and trains on the critique followed by the corrected action. (c) Task success rate of Gemma 4 E2B on τ2 Airline+Retail and WebShop.
Environment
Student Model
Base
Action
CAFT
Distillation
Correction
Critique
Full
τ2 AR
Gemma 4 E2B
24.5
35.9
37.0
42.6
46.6
Gemma 4 E4B
42.4
49.7
49.3
53.2
52.1
Gemma 4 31B
65.1
66.7
67.0
69.4
69.4
Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
47.8
52.1
57.6
59.3
60.3
WebShop
Gemma 4 E2B
43.1
54.6
55.9
60.3
65.3
Table 1: Comparison of CAFT and its ablated variants against action distillation. Task success (%) on τ2 AR and WebShop for the base policies, the action-distillation baseline, and CAFT and its ablations. CAFT-Critique and CAFT consistently outperform all other methods in all student–environment pairs.
Detailed
Privileged
Gemma 4
Gemma 4
Nemotron 3
prompt
info
E2B
E4B
Nano 4B
✓
✓
46.6
52.1
60.3
✓
✗
34.2
44.7
57.7
✗
✓
40.1
50.0
60.7
✗
✗
32.9
43.3
57.2
Table 2: Ablating privileged information and detailed guidance in the expert prompt. τ2 AR task success (%) of CAFT trained on critiques from Gemma 4 31B, varying whether the expert receives privileged task information and a detailed critique prompt. Privileged information has a larger impact than the detailed prompt.
Environment
Student
Expert Distill.
CAFT
CAFT +BC
τ2 AR
Gemma 4 E2B
50.4
46.6
53.7
Gemma 4 E4B
53.8
52.1
60.1
Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
53.3
60.3
56.0
WebShop
Gemma 4 E2B
19.1
65.3
—
Gemma 4 E4B
16.4
62.6
—
Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
15.0
58.9
—
Table 3: Comparison of CAFT with expert-trajectory distillation. Task success (%). Expert Distillation behavior-clones trajectories from Gemma 4 31B; CAFT +BC mixes 50% expert trajectories with 50% CAFT data. Expert distillation collapses on WebShop, so CAFT +BC is not run there.
Environment
Student Model
iteration 1
iteration 2
τ2 AR
Gemma 4 E2B
46.6
48.2
Gemma 4 E4B
52.1
55.2
Gemma 4 31B
69.4
65.4
Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
60.3
58.8
WebShop
Gemma 4 E2B
65.3
72.1
Gemma 4 E4B
62.6
64.9
Table 4: Using CAFT for a second iteration. Task success (%) after one and two iterations of CAFT. A second iteration helps every student on WebShop and the smaller Gemma students on τ2 AR.
Figure 2: Using CAFT as a warm start for RL. GRPO on τ2 AR with Nemotron 3 Nano 4B from three initializations. (a) Validation task success, averaged over the airline and retail validation splits. (b) Mean reward of on-policy rollouts during training.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: τ2 -Bench expert annotation prompt: system message . The per-domain note of Figure 4 is inserted immediately before item 1, and the agent’s full domain policy and tool schema are appended to it verbatim.
Figure 4: τ2 -Bench domain notes , one per domain, inserted into the expert system message of Figure 3 .
Figure 5: τ2 -Bench expert annotation prompt: per-step user message. Under the no-privilege condition only the <conversation_so_far> and <step_the_agent_just_took> blocks are kept.
Figure 6: WebShop expert annotation prompt: system message. The expert sees the shopping instruction, the privileged goal specification, the buttons on the agent’s current page, and the episode so far.
Figure 7: WebShop expert annotation prompt: per-step user message.
Figure 8: WebShop student system prompt used by our ReAct harness. The CAFT system addendum of Figure 11 is appended to it during fine-tuning.
Figure 9: No-privilege opening paragraph , which replaces the first two paragraphs of the expert system message of Figure 3 .
Figure 10: Minimal critique guidance , which replaces criticality and correctness clauses 1 and 2 of Figure 3 ; the output format and the first-person directive are unchanged.
Figure 11: CAFT (full) : student system addendum and interjection ρ .
Figure 12: CAFT-Correction : student system addendum and interjection ρ .
Figure 13: CAFT-Critique : student system addendum and interjection ρ .
Parameter
Value
Advantage estimator
GRPO
Rollouts per prompt ( n )
16
Prompts per step
32
Mini-batch size
16
Micro-batch size per GPU
1
Learning rate
5×10−7
Appendix
Table 5: GRPO hyperparameters for the τ2 AR warm-start experiments using Nemotron 3 Nano 4B.
Student Model
λ=0.01
λ=0.1
λ=0.5
Gemma 4 E2B
45.8
46.6
39.4
Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
53.0
60.3
54.7
Appendix
Table 6: τ2 AR task success (%) as a function of the correct-turn loss weight λ (CAFT uses λ=0.1 everywhere else in the paper). All arms share the same student trajectories and expert annotations and differ only in λ .
Student
0% (CAFT)
25% BC
50% BC
75% BC
Gemma 4 E2B
46.6
47.2
53.7
51.5
Gemma 4 E4B
52.1
56.3
60.1
52.8
Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
60.3
56.7
56.0
56.5
Appendix
Table 7: τ2 AR task success (%) as a function of the expert-trajectory fraction in CAFT +BC. The 0% column is pure CAFT and the reference for the sweep.
Base
CAFT
CAFT +BC
Environment
Student
Succ.
Corr./ep.
Succ.
Corr./ep.
Succ.
Corr./ep.
τ2 AR
Gemma 4 E2B
66.7
4.19
70.3
3.20
70.4
1.19
Gemma 4 E4B
71.4
2.51
76.1
2.08
71.4
1.11
Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
77.9
2.55
81.1
2.15
69.9
1.32
WebShop
Gemma 4 E2B
80.0
4.77
72.0
3.73
—
—
Gemma 4 E4B
80.0
5.25
68.0
2.82
—
—
Appendix
Table 8: Expert Interventions. Task success (%) when the expert corrects flagged actions at inference time, alongside the average number of expert corrections per episode (Corr./ep.).
Large language model agents tackle multi-step tasks by interleaving reasoning and tool calls with observations from the environment. Prior work has shown that natural-language feedback can help these agents revise their decisions during task execution. We introduce Caddie, a method for training critics to provide natural-language analysis and advice as agents work through a task. Unlike approaches that rely on step-level labels or reference critiques, Caddie learns from whether the agent ultimately succeeds after receiving the critic's feedback. We optimize the critic through reinforcement learning while keeping the base model frozen. Trained on multi-hop question answering with a single base model, our Qwen3-4B critic improves success rates across four base models of different scales and architectures, including three not used during critic training. On the MuSiQue benchmark, the trained critic improves Qwen3-4B's success rate by more than 25 percentage points, surpassing the performance of Kimi K3 without a critic. The same critic also yields gains on out-of-domain interactive benchmarks, including τ3 and DeepDive, with no additional training. Our results show that agents can decide when to seek help from a critic at inference time and that outcome-based critic training can produce guidance that transfers across base models and task domains.
Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in long-horizon, interactive, and stateful environments. In these settings, a single wrong action, such as refunding the wrong purchase, can cause irreversible task failure and must be intercepted before execution. Such failures may not appear in every single run, but can emerge across repeated trials, making reliability across steps and trials critical. However, ensuring agentic reliability is challenging: even frontier LLMs struggle to explain why an action may be wrong, especially in long, intertwined trajectories governed by domain-specific policies. Much recent work relies on prompt-based critique agents, while optimization-based methods lack a systematic way to produce rich verification rationales for training. We address this gap with CAST, a critique-aware training framework that converts sparse task outcomes into action-level supervision for critique learning and policy optimization. CAST analyzes agent trajectories to synthesize structured rationales explaining action validity under partial observability. The resulting critique model is used to construct critique-aware training data for optimizing the policy model. Fine-tuning Qwen3-family models on dynamic tool-calling benchmarks, CAST improves reliability across domains, outperforming GPT-OSS-120B by over 10% pass^4 on Retail tasks and yielding an additional 9% improvement on Telehealth in an out-of-domain setting. These results demonstrate that critique-aware training improves the robustness of LLM agents in realistic dynamic environments.
Large language models (LLMs) exhibit strong reasoning and conversational abilities, but ensuring reliable behavior in multi-turn interactions remains challenging. In many real-world applications, agents must succeed in one-shot settings where retries are impossible. Existing approaches either rely on reflection or post-hoc evaluation, which require additional attempts, or assume fully trainable models that cannot leverage proprietary LLMs. We propose an asymmetric actor-critic framework for reliable conversational agents. A powerful proprietary LLM acts as the actor, while a smaller open-source critic provides runtime supervision, monitoring the actor's actions and intervening within the same interaction trajectory. Unlike training-based actor-critic methods, our framework supervises a fixed actor operating in open-ended conversational environments. The design leverages a generation-verification asymmetry: while high-quality generation requires large models, effective oversight can often be achieved by smaller ones. We further introduce a data generation pipeline that produces supervision signals for critic fine-tuning without modifying the actor. Experiments on τ-bench and UserBench show that our approach significantly improves reliability and task success over strong single-agent baselines. Moreover, lightweight open-source critics rival or surpass larger proprietary models in the critic role, and critic fine-tuning yields additional gains over several state-of-the-art methods.