Scaling Autonomous Agents via Automatic Reward Modeling And Planning
Zhenfang Chen, Delin Chen, Rui Sun, Wenjun Liu, Chuang Gan

TL;DR
This paper introduces a framework that automatically learns reward models from the environment to improve large language model agents' decision-making in complex tasks, overcoming data and API access limitations.
Contribution
The authors propose a novel method for automatically training reward models from environment interactions without human annotations, enhancing LLM agents' planning and decision-making capabilities.
Findings
Effective reward models learned from environment trajectories
Improved decision-making in LLM agents demonstrated on benchmarks
Automated reward modeling reduces reliance on human-labeled data
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a range of text-generation tasks. However, LLMs still struggle with problems requiring multi-step decision-making and environmental feedback, such as online shopping, scientific reasoning, and mathematical problem-solving. Unlike pure text data, collecting large-scale decision-making data is challenging. Moreover, many powerful LLMs are only accessible through APIs, which hinders their fine-tuning for agent tasks due to cost and complexity. To address LLM agents' limitations, we propose a framework that can automatically learn a reward model from the environment without human annotations. This model can be used to evaluate the action trajectories of LLM agents and provide heuristics for task planning. Specifically, our approach involves employing one LLM-based agent to navigate an environment randomly,…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2025 Poster
Innovative Reward Modeling Approach: The ARMAP framework leverages LLMs to generate diverse action trajectories, then synthesizes task goals and feedback to train a reward model. This automation of reward modeling is a strong innovation, addressing critical limitations in agent-based tasks by reducing reliance on costly and often proprietary data. Framework Flexibility: The framework’s compatibility with multiple planning algorithms (MCTS, Reflexion, Best-of-N) demonstrates flexibility and pote
Limited Scope of Tested Environments: Although the ARMAP framework was evaluated in multiple environments, these remain relatively constrained in task diversity (e.g., online shopping, elementary science tasks). Further exploration into environments with more complex multi-modal interactions or requiring intricate goal alignment would provide stronger evidence of the framework’s versatility. Potential Overhead in Data Synthesis: While the automated reward modeling is valuable, the reliance on i
Automated Reward Modeling: It presents an innovative method for autonomously learning reward models without the need for human-annotated data, addressing issues related to data scarcity and dependence on costly closed-source LLMs. This makes the framework scalable and practical for real-world applications. Enhanced Decision-Making for LLM Agents: By offering a reward-based evaluation system, ARMAP significantly boosts the ability of LLM agents to perform complex, multi-step tasks that require s
Limited Applicability in Highly Dynamic Environments: While the framework performs well in simulated environments with fixed rules, such as online shopping simulations and controlled benchmarks, its effectiveness in rapidly changing, unpredictable real-world environments is uncertain. The model may struggle with scenarios that require quick adaptation to new patterns not present in the training data. Computational Overhead with Complex Planning: The integration of planning algorithms like MCTS,
Originality: The automatic reward model and data generation approach presented is novel, allowing the framework to guide task completion within complex decision-making environments effectively. Quality: ARMAP stands out by using a reward model to evaluate and guide navigation steps in agentic environments, enhancing decision-making processes and setting a solid foundation for handling intricate tasks autonomously. Clarity: The paper is well-written, with a clear flow that effectively communica
Specificity in Reward Model Design: The paper lacks detailed information on the size and neural architecture of the reward model. Additionally, challenges in reward model development are not clearly defined. More depth and specific examples are needed to clarify these choices and support the framework's claims. Limited Dataset Scope: The study could benefit from evaluating on a broader set of complex, long-trajectory decision-making agent datasets. Including established datasets such as AlfWorl
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation · Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
