What Do Agents Learn from Trajectory-SFT: Semantics or Interfaces?
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models are increasingly evaluated as interactive agents, yet standard agent benchmarks conflate two qualitatively distinct sources of success: semantic tool-use and interface-specific interaction pattern memorization. Because both mechanisms can yield identical task success on the original interface, benchmark scores alone are not identifiable evidence of environment-invariant capability. We propose PIPE, a protocol-level evaluation augmentation for diagnosing interface reliance by minimally rewriting environment interfaces while preserving task semantics and execution behavior. Across 16 environments from AgentBench and AgentGym and a range of open-source and API-based agents, PIPE reveals that trajectory-SFT substantially amplifies interface shortcutting: trained agents degrade sharply under minimal interface rewrites, while non-trajectory-trained models remain largely stable. We further introduce Interface Reliance (IR), a counterbalanced alias-based metric that quantifies preference for training-time interfaces, and show that interface shortcutting exhibits environment-dependent, non-monotonic training dynamics that remain invisible under standard evaluation. Our code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/What-Do-Agents-Learn-from-Trajectory-SFT-Semantics-or-Interfaces--0831/.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 33 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Feb 2026.
Builds on
33 of 38 references.
Closest ancestors · 12
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Agent Data Protocol: Unifying Datasets for Diverse, Effective Fine-tuning of LLM Agents28 Oct
- 2025Towards General Agentic Intelligence via Environment Scaling16 Sep
- 2025Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey29 Jul
- 2025Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agents20 Mar
- 2025A Survey on the Optimization of Large Language Model-based Agents16 Mar
- 2025ATLaS: Agent Tuning via Learning Critical Steps4 Mar
- 2025AgentRefine: Enhancing Agent Generalization through Refinement Tuning3 Jan
- 2024AgentBank: Towards Generalized LLM Agents via Fine-Tuning on 50000+ Interaction Trajectories10 Oct
- 2024Agent-FLAN: Designing Data and Methods of Effective Agent Tuning for Large Language Models19 Mar
- 2023AgentTuning: Enabling Generalized Agent Abilities for LLMs19 Oct
- 2023The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey14 Sep
- 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents7 Aug
Other references · 21
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
- 2025Gemma 3 Technical Reportcited by 1,686
- 2020Constructing A Multi-hop QA Dataset for Comprehensive Evaluation of Reasoning Stepscited by 1,259
- 2023Mind2Web: Towards a Generalist Agent for the Webcited by 1,210
- 2022WebShop: Towards Scalable Real-World Web Interaction with Grounded Language Agentscited by 1,197
- 2023PandaLM: An Automatic Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Instruction Tuning Optimizationcited by 311
- 2025WebDancer: Towards Autonomous Information Seeking Agencycited by 180
- 2025WebWalker: Benchmarking LLMs in Web Traversalcited by 171
- 2025WebShaper: Agentically Data Synthesizing via Information-Seeking Formalizationcited by 118
9 more
- 2025Deep Research: A Survey of Autonomous Research Agentscited by 63
- 2025Overtrained Language Models Are Harder to Fine-Tunecited by 57
- 2024KIEval: A Knowledge-grounded Interactive Evaluation Framework for Large Language Modelscited by 36
- 2025WebLeaper: Empowering Efficiency and Efficacy in WebAgent via Enabling Info-Rich Seekingcited by 17
- 2023Over-training with Mixup May Hurt Generalizationcited by 13
- 2026StackPlanner: A Centralized Hierarchical Multi-Agent System with Task-Experience Memory Managementcited by 13
- 2025Repurposing Synthetic Data for Fine-grained Search Agent Supervisioncited by 10
- 2025Nested Browser-Use Learning for Agentic Information Seekingcited by 5
- 2019Circuit-Based Intrinsic Methods to Detect Overfittingcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.
4 papers.
- 2026SPT: Skills as Pre-Training Data for Agentic Language Modelscited by 0
- 2026Vision: Data-Centric Anchoring for Robust and Interpretable Agentic AIcited by 0
- 2026Behavior Quotient Learning for Low-Rank Adaptation of LLM Agentscited by 0
- 2026Not All Experience Belongs in the Weights: Component Routing for Self-Improving GUI Agentscited by 0
- 2026Not All Experience Belongs in the Weights: Component Routing for Self-Improving GUI Agents1 Oct 2026
- 2026Behavior Quotient Learning for Low-Rank Adaptation of LLM Agents11 Sep 2026
- 2026Vision: Data-Centric Anchoring for Robust and Interpretable Agentic AI8 Sep 2026
- 2026SPT: Skills as Pre-Training Data for Agentic Language Models27 Aug 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025TRAJECT-Bench:A Trajectory-Aware Benchmark for Evaluating Agentic Tool Use
- 2026OdysseyArena: Benchmarking Large Language Models For Long-Horizon, Active and Inductive Interactions
- 2025Agent-Environment Alignment via Automated Interface Generation
- 2026Action-Space Shaping for LLM Agents: Measuring and Mitigating Tool-Schema Bias
- 2025GroundAct: Can LLM Agents Ground Actions in Environmental States?
- 2026AutoRefine: Compiling Trajectories into Validated Typed Agent Artifacts
- 2026OpaqueToolsBench: Learning Nuances of Tool Behavior Through Interaction
- 2026AMA-Bench: Evaluating Long-Horizon Memory for Agentic Applications