GroundAct: Can LLM Agents Ground Actions in Environmental States?

Abstract

LLM agents achieve 85-96% success on tasks where instructions fully specify the action, but drop to 29-53% when action feasibility depends on environmental state that the instruction does not mention. We argue that this gap reflects a missing capability: action grounding, the ability to infer from structured environmental state whether an action is feasible, what prerequisites it lacks, and whether it exceeds individual capacity. We introduce GroundAct, a benchmark of 1,500 scenarios and 16,592 task instances in text-based interactive environments spanning 11 domains, with tasks organized into seven categories along a cognitive complexity hierarchy. Evaluating 15 LLMs (3B-671B), we find three diagnostic patterns: (i) attribute reasoning is weakly correlated with tool and coordination reasoning, producing distinct model profiles; (ii) complete environment graphs yield up to +27.6/-22.9% on tool use vs. implicit collaboration, separating search-bound from constraint-filtering bottlenecks; and (iii) supervised fine-tuning lifts Qwen2.5-3B from 0.6% to 76.3% on direct command but only 1.5% to 5.5% on implicit collaboration. These results establish action grounding as a multi-dimensional challenge irreducible to scaling.