A Practitioner's Guide to Multi-turn Agentic Reinforcement Learning

We study what actually works and what doesn't for training large language models as agents via multi-turn reinforcement learning. Despite rapid progress, existing frameworks and definitions are fragmented, and there is no systematic formulation or analysis of which design choices matter across tasks. We address this gap by first breaking down the design space into three inter-related pillars--environment, reward, and policy--and empirically derive a recipe for training LLM agents in situated textual domains. In particular, we test TextWorld and ALFWorld, popular domains for testing situated embodied reasoning, as well as SWE-Gym for more software engineering style tasks. Training LLMs as autonomous agents to navigate open-ended environments presents unique challenges: planning across extended horizons, making multi-turn sequential decisions, and optimizing for multi-turn rewards. The transition from static single-turn problem-solving to dynamic multi-step reasoning is essential for agentic benchmarks such as interactive text and embodied simulations (TextWorld (C ˆ ot e et al., 2018), ALFWorld (Shridhar et al., 2021), etc.), real-world software programming (OSWorld (Xie et al., 2024), SWE-gym (Pan et al., 2025), etc.), and abstract reasoning in novel situations (ARC-AGI (Chollet et al., 2025)). However, existing multi-turn RL implementations vary widely: some refer to tool-augmented single queries as multi-turn (Zeng et al., 2025), while many rely on model-based assumptions (Wang et al., 2025). This fragmentation has led to incomparable results across papers and confusion about what constitutes true multi-turn learning versus pseudo-multi-turn adaptations of single-turn methods. This paper aims to facilitate research efforts on the open research question: What factors are practically important in making multi-turn RL for LLM agent learning work. Motivated by the lack of standardization of multi-turn RL approaches, we systematically decompose the design space into three interdependent pillars--environment, reward, and policy--and empirically derive a recipe for training LLM agents in situated textual domains (Figure 1). We evaluate our approach on TextWorld and ALFWorld for embodied reasoning, and SWE-gym for real-world programming, revealing critical insights for each pillar.