cs.AIOct 15, 2026

Learning When to Withdraw: Curriculum Coverage and Rule-Specific Failures in Fine-Tuned Language Agents

Authors: Mohamed Abouzahra

Organizations: California State University, Monterey Bay

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

Tool-using language agents must revise prepared actions when evidence changes or authority is revoked. Selective withdrawal means suspending affected actions, preserving supported work, and resuming only after sufficient repair. We study supervised fine-tuning in NAQD-Env, a synthetic environment with explicit dependencies and a deterministic reference policy. Four LoRA checkpoints of Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct compare an original curriculum with an enriched one, the latter under three system-prompt framings with identical views and targets. Three instruction-tuned baselines and all four checkpoints are evaluated under three inference prompts on fresh validation cases, held-out dependency families, and held-out structural combinations. Under the naqd prompt, SFT checkpoints reach decision agreement of 0.77-0.92 and withdrawal recall of 0.46-0.86, versus 0.45-0.63 and at most 0.06 for the baselines. Rule-level diagnostics qualify these gains. The original-curriculum checkpoint wrongly withdraws 26 of 34 actions with surviving alternative support; enriched checkpoints withdraw 0-1. Conversely, all SFT checkpoints narrow prohibited combinations less often than the 7B and 8B baselines, a case absent from both curricula. Delegation results show more withdrawal but poorer preservation of independently authorized actions, and all four checkpoints omit valid event reports. Framing contrasts vary across metrics and splits and do not establish a reproducible advantage or equivalence. One training run per arm, jointly changed curriculum properties, prior evaluation exposure, and baseline-SFT quantization differences limit causal attribution. The contribution is a method for detecting rule-specific regressions that aggregate accuracy can conceal, not evidence that fine-tuning alone ensures agent safety.

More in this topic

LLM Agent Evaluation

Large language model agent evaluation measures whether tool-using systems complete tasks reliably, safely, and efficiently.

See all 1,217 papers

Explore similar work

CardsList
Sep 29, 2026

NAQD Env: A benchmark for selective withdrawal in language agents

Language agents must revise planned actions when evidence changes, permission is revoked, or a stop instruction arrives. A useful response is selective: suspend affected actions, preserve unaffected work, and resume only after sufficient repair. We introduce NAQD-Env, a synthetic environment that evaluates these decisions against a deterministic reference policy over explicit evidence, authorization, and constraint dependencies. Eleven dependency families support evaluation on development structures, held-out families, and held-out combinations of structures. Metrics distinguish attempted violations from violations permitted by a simulated execution gate and jointly report policy agreement, task value, withdrawal, resumption, and event reporting. We evaluate three open-weight instruction-tuned models from two families under three prompt conditions on 350 frozen scenarios, yielding 3,150 model-prompt episodes before gate replay. Across the reported conditions, withdrawal recall is at most 0.06, no valid resumption is observed at eligible opportunities, and only one episode matches the complete reference policy. Under the NAQD prompt, Qwen2.5-7B has fewer unsafe-attempt episodes than Qwen2.5-3B and Llama-3.1-8B, but also completes less useful work and preserves unaffected actions less accurately. Exploratory supervised fine-tuning probes increase Qwen2.5-3B decision accuracy from 0.45-0.54 to 0.83-0.92; separate diagnostics reveal inappropriate withdrawal after curriculum omissions and a loss of event reporting. These results motivate evaluating selective withdrawal as a distinct component of agent reliability. The setting measures policy application with trusted structured inputs and does not establish real-world containment or source-verification ability.

Mohamed Abouzahra

California State University, Monterey Bay

LLM Agent EvaluationAI Agent Safety BenchmarksLLM Agent Reliability
AskPDF
Sep 27, 2026

NLPG: Natural-Language Policy Gradients for Self-Evolving Language Agents

Large language model agents increasingly rely on compound programs for retrieval, tool use, reasoning, and verification, yet their failures often arise from local procedural decisions. Existing reinforcement-learning and prompt-optimization approaches typically rely on scalar rewards or repeatedly modify entire prompts, making it difficult to capture and reuse procedural improvements while preserving a frozen agent. To address this problem, We propose Natural-Language Policy Gradients (NLPG), an external policy-memory method for improving a fixed agent without changing its model parameters or program structure. NLPG diagnoses execution traces, propagates downstream feedback backward through the module graph, and converts recurring failures into route-local natural-language corrections that are aggregated into bounded policy updates for subsequent executions. Across six benchmarks covering memory, reasoning, instruction following, and evidence verification, NLPG also outperforms the strongest listed baseline for each benchmark by 8.71 percentage points on average. These results provide evidence that evaluated procedural experience can be transformed into local and interpretable policy updates, enabling continual improvement of frozen agents.

Xu Liu, WenZhang Wei, Jun Cao +4

School of Electronic Information, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China · School of Remote Sensing and Information Engineering, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China · State Key Laboratory of Information Engineering in Surveying, Mapping and Remote Sensing, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China

Continual Learning for LLM AgentsPolicy OptimizationLanguage Model Self-ImprovementPolicy LearningMemory-Augmented Language Model Agents
AskPDF
Oct 14, 2026

Beyond Corrected Actions: Training LLM Agents on Textual Critiques

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 τ2τ^2-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.

Thomas Zeng, Zelei Cheng, Mingyang Zhou +3

University of Wisconsin–Madison · AI Foundations, Capital One

LLM Agent TrainingLanguage Model Distillation
AskPDF