LLF-Bench: Benchmark for Interactive Learning from Language Feedback

Ching-An Cheng; Andrey Kolobov; Dipendra Misra; Allen Nie; Adith Swaminathan

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2312.06853

LLF-Bench: Benchmark for Interactive Learning from Language Feedback

Ching-An Cheng·Andrey Kolobov·Dipendra Misra·Allen Nie·Adith Swaminathan

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We introduce a new benchmark, LLF-Bench (Learning from Language Feedback Benchmark; pronounced as "elf-bench"), to evaluate the ability of AI agents to interactively learn from natural language feedback and instructions. Learning from language feedback (LLF) is essential for people, largely because the rich information this feedback provides can help a learner avoid much of trial and error and thereby speed up the learning process. Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently enabled AI agents to comprehend natural language -- and hence AI agents can potentially benefit from language feedback during learning like humans do. But existing interactive benchmarks do not assess this crucial capability: they either use numeric reward feedback or require no learning at all (only planning or information retrieval). LLF-Bench is designed to fill this omission. LLF-Bench is a diverse collection of sequential decision-making tasks that includes user recommendation, poem writing, navigation, and robot control. The objective of an agent is to interactively solve these tasks based on their natural-language instructions and the feedback received after taking actions. Crucially, to ensure that the agent actually "learns" from the feedback, LLF-Bench implements several randomization techniques (such as paraphrasing and environment randomization) to ensure that the task isn't familiar to the agent and that the agent is robust to various verbalizations. In addition, LLF-Bench provides a unified OpenAI Gym interface for all its tasks and allows the users to easily configure the information the feedback conveys (among suggestion, explanation, and instantaneous performance) to study how agents respond to different types of feedback. Together, these features make LLF-Bench a unique research platform for developing and testing LLF agents.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Ching-An Cheng, Andrey Kolobov, Dipendra Misra, Allen Nie, Adith Swaminathan. 2023-12-11. LLF-Bench: Benchmark for Interactive Learning from Language Feedback. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.06853

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗