Can we build accurate world models out of large language models (LLMs)? How can world models benefit LLM agents? The gap between the prior knowledge of LLMs and the specified environment's dynamics usually bottlenecks LLMs' performance as world models. To bridge the gap, we propose a training-free world alignment that learns an environment's symbolic knowledge complementary to LLMs. The symbolic knowledge covers action rules, knowledge graphs, and scene graphs, which are extracted by LLMs from exploration trajectories and encoded into executable codes to regulate LLM agents' policies.

Improving Large Language Model (LLM) agents for sequential decision-making tasks typically requires extensive task-specific knowledge engineering--custom prompts, curated examples, and specialized observation/action spaces. We investigate a different approach where agents automatically improve by learning from their own successful experiences without human intervention. Our method constructs and refines a database of self-generated trajectories that serve as in-context examples for future tasks.

Improving Large Language Model (LLM) agents for sequential decision-making tasks typically requires extensive task-specific knowledge engineering--custom prompts, curated examples, and specialized observation/action spaces. We investigate a different approach where agents automatically improve by learning from their own successful experiences without human intervention. Our method constructs and refines a database of self-generated trajectories that serve as in-context examples for future tasks.

Agentic reinforcement learning (RL) enables LLM agents to improve continuously from environment rewards, yet the resulting policies do not systematically accumulate reusable strategies that generalize across tasks. Modular skills can provide such reusable strategies, yet existing skill-augmented RL methods decouple skill creation from policy optimization, risking adopting skills that conflict with the evolving policy. Inspired by Anthropic's Skill Creator, we introduce RESKILL, an RL-in-the-loop skill creation framework that reconciles skill evolution with policy learning. RESKILL exploits the group-wise structure of GRPO to naturally embed three mechanisms with only marginal additional overhead: (1) an assertion-driven skill creator that diagnoses failures from past experience and proposes conditional, trigger-based skill revisions; (2) within-group rollout sampling that enables controlled comparison of skill versions, capturing which version best supports the policy's ongoing learning; and (3) Thompson Sampling with adaptive discounting to balance exploration and exploitation in skill version selection as the policy evolves. Across several domains, RESKILL consistently outperforms existing memory and skill-based RL methods, with the largest gains on unseen tasks. Analysis of the skill lifecycle shows skills being automatically created, tested, refined, and pruned as the policy improves, demonstrating reconciled skill-policy co-evolution.

As search depth increases in autonomous reasoning and embodied planning, the candidate action space expands exponentially, heavily taxing computational budgets. While heuristic pruning is a common countermeasure, it operates without formal safety guarantees when surrogate models (like LLMs) exhibit systematic evaluation biases. This paper frames the node expansion process as a localized Best-Arm Identification (BAI) problem over dynamic frontiers, subject to a bounded systematic bias $L$. By inverting the Lambert W function, we establish an additive sample complexity of $\mathcal{O}((Δ-4L)^{-2})$, which indicates that safe node elimination is only feasible when the empirical reward gap exceeds $4L$. We complement this with an information-theoretic lower bound of $Ω((Δ-2L)^{-2})$ to confirm the structural limits of biased search. Subsequent evaluations on both synthetic trees and complex reasoning tasks demonstrate that adhering to this local safety boundary successfully preserves optimal trajectories while maximizing sample allocation efficiency.

Figure dynamics into predict learning from green.

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.