ZeroHour
arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CLpublished ()ingested Juzheng Zhang
Part of a story covered by 2 sources: “Don't Mask the Environment: Observation Supervision Changes How Agents Explore Under RL” — merged summary and timeline →

Don't Mask the Environment: Observation Supervision Changes How Agents Explore Under RL

infoAI researchimportance 35
AI summary · glm-5.3-flash

ActObs supervises observation tokens during SFT, improving GRPO-trained agent pass@k on Terminal-Bench 2.0 and cross-domain code editing for Qwen3 models.

The paper introduces ActObs, an SFT variant that adds prediction loss on environment observation tokens already present in agent trajectories. After GRPO on Qwen3-4B, ActObs achieves higher pass@k at every sampling budget on Terminal-Bench 2.0 than action-only SFT. On Qwen3-8B it trades some pass@1 reliability for higher pass@k (+3.4 pp at pass@16) and improves cross-domain code editing on aider-polyglot (+4.2 pp pass@1 at 4B). Analysis shows action and observation gradients become orthogonal, preserving environment prediction and exploration for downstream RL.

  • ActObs supervises observation tokens already in agent trajectories without extra data, parameters, tokens, or forward passes.
  • GRPO from ActObs beats action-only SFT in pass@k at every budget on Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Qwen3-4B).
  • On Qwen3-8B it gains +3.4 pp pass@16 while trading some pass@1 reliability.
  • Cross-domain code editing on aider-polyglot improves +4.2 pp pass@1 at 4B on unseen tasks.
  • Action and observation gradients become orthogonal, preserving consequence prediction and entropy during RL.
Full article225 words · extracted from arxiv.org · click to collapse

Agent trajectories record what an agent does and what happens next. Yet standard supervised fine-tuning (SFT) applies loss only to agent-authored action tokens, using environment observations as context but not as prediction targets. We ask whether this convention provides the best initialization for subsequent reinforcement learning. We introduce ActObs, which also supervises the observation tokens already present in each trajectory. Although deployed agents never generate observations, learning to predict them encourages the policy to model action consequences without adding data, parameters, sequence tokens, or forward passes. The methods perform similarly after SFT but diverge after GRPO. On Qwen3-4B, GRPO from ActObs achieves higher pass@k at every evaluated sampling budget than its action-only counterpart on Terminal-Bench 2.0. On Qwen3-8B, it trades some pass@1 reliability for higher pass@k (+3.4 pp at pass@16) and solves more distinct tasks. The advantage extends to cross-domain code editing on aider-polyglot (+4.2 pp at pass@1 at 4B), whose tasks are unseen during SFT and RL. ActObs retains more entropy during RL while requiring less policy movement, leaving the final policy closer to its SFT initialization. Our analysis traces this difference to SFT: action and observation gradients rapidly become orthogonal, while action-only training leaves a large residual observation gradient and degrades environment prediction below the base model. Joint supervision prevents this one-sided specialization, preserving consequence prediction and preparing the policy for downstream exploration.

Text extracted automatically; images, tables and formatting may be missing. Original: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.20715