LAM Simulator: Advancing Large Action Model Training for Agent via Online Exploration and Feedback Simulation
LLMs Agent; Self-learning;Reinforcement Learning; Data Generation
Yes
No ethics review needed.
- How come the human-crafted abstracted tasks has such a relatively high proportion of "astronomy" tasks. It feels like strangely very specific, how come there aren't other e.g. science topics? It is claimed in section 3.4 the human-crafted abstracted tasks are meticulously designed for the typical requests the LAM might receive from users. However this seems heavily audience dependent, perhaps I missed a sentence somewhere but is the audience mostly astronomers in this case?
- For task categories what does "data" and "database" mean exactly? Why is the "data" category such a high proportion?
- Why DPO for preference optimization instead of other options?
- What is U. Tool, U. Cat etc in the header of table 1?
- Table 2 shows average errors, but these numbers are meaningless without knowing the number of times the model was evaluated. Moreover, there are no standard deviation metrics in any tables and specifically table 2, it is difficult to know if the results are really statistically significant or if there is some lucky prompting changes/randomness in the inference models or evaluation LLMs.

If all weaknesses and questions are addressed I am happy to raise the score into the accept range. My biggest concern is mostly around the lack of examples and explanations for a lot of terms and phrases.
- Preference data generation for finetuning via DPO is neat to address the challenges of multi-turn conversations, it encourages more diverse data pairs
- Compared to past work this submission introduces many more domains the system can handle queries for
The submission introduces a system that incorporates a simulator with a language model for more effective large action models. In response to a user query the LAM Simulator system iteratively refines its response multiple times in a loop. The refinement leverages feedback from the simulator which has syntax verification and request execution tools to improve the final response.
- Many parts of the submission seem to lack explanation or additional clarification (perhaps to be put in the appendix) on many details. I ask some direct clarification questions in the questions section. It is also possible that my inexperience with research on these types of agents has led to me being unaware of some terms.
- Figure 1 seems to suggest you can only pass or fail via the syntax verification engine. What happens after the request verification engine?
- There's a lack of example/qualitative user interactions and agent responses (including the generated conversation data in the multi-turn setup). There also appear to be no examples of user command templates, task evaluators etc., (many elements of figure 1). It is quite hard to visualize what exactly is going on and how it might be better than related work.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
1. **Lack of Detail on Reward Calculation:** The paper briefly describes using “action rewards” to generate preference data for DPO but doesn’t clarify how these rewards are calculated. Are rewards based on a specific scoring metric, or are they derived from evaluator feedback? A clearer explanation of the reward components and their calculation method would clarify how preference scores are assigned to different actions or paths.

2. **Potential Overfitting to ToolEval Benchmark:** With performance gains reported on ToolEval, there’s a possibility that the LAM Simulator is optimized specifically for this benchmark. Given ToolEval’s structured and predefined nature, the model might be learning patterns specific to ToolEval, which could limit generalizability. Testing the framework on multiple diverse benchmarks, or introducing a new, unstructured benchmark, would give a more robust picture of its true capabilities.

3. **Limited Discussion on the Impact of Feedback Granularity:** The framework provides both action-wise and task-wise feedback, but the paper does not analyze the relative impact of these feedback types on agent learning. Understanding whether detailed, step-by-step feedback leads to more effective training compared to feedback provided only at task completion could help optimize the feedback strategy and reduce computation costs.

4. **What is the success rate of data generation?:** Can the authors provide quantitative information on the success rate of data generation within the LAM Simulator? For instance, out of all attempted tasks or interactions, what percentage completes successfully without errors? This metric would give insight into the reliability and efficiency of the simulator.

5. **What specific measures ensure the quality of generated data?:** The paper mentions filtering methods to ensure data quality, but could the authors elaborate on the full set of criteria or techniques used to evaluate data quality? Are there specific metrics, benchmarks, or thresholds that generated data must meet?
1.	**Innovative Framework:** The LAM Simulator introduces a novel method for automating LAM training through simulated feedback and task exploration.
2.	**Performance Improvements:** The framework achieves measurable improvements over baseline models, e.g. GPT-4o, showing its effectiveness in enhancing agent task performance.
3.	Scalability: The reduction in human intervention for data generation makes this framework adaptable for large-scale agent training.
4.	**Comprehensive Evaluation:** The use of multiple evaluators provides continuous feedback, leading to improved agent performance and fewer errors.
The paper introduces the LAM Simulator, a framework for enhancing Large Action Model (LAM) training through online exploration and simulated feedback. By providing AI agents with curated tools, feedback, and interactive environments, the framework enables cost-effective, autonomous data generation with minimal human input. Experiments show significant performance improvements, particularly with the LAM-Sim-8x7B model, and error reduction through automated feedback.
1. **Limited Comparative Analysis:** While the paper briefly mentions related methods like ToolTalk, WebArena, and APIGen, it lacks a thorough comparison with these and other frameworks for automated data synthesis and agent training. Such a comparison would provide valuable context and clarity on the specific advantages or disadvantages of the LAM Simulator relative to existing approaches. The authors could strengthen the paper by providing empirical comparisons or, at minimum, a more detailed discussion of how the LAM Simulator diverges or improves upon these methods.

2. **Comparative Performance Analysis on Agent Self-Exploration:** Although the paper demonstrates improvements over xLAM, it would benefit from a direct, quantitative comparison to other self-exploration-based methods. This could include metrics for data quality, agent adaptability, or overall effectiveness in reducing human intervention. Without such benchmarks, it’s challenging to assess how the LAM Simulator stacks up against state-of-the-art methods in self-guided agent learning.

3. **Insufficient Examples of Human-Crafted Tools:** The paper describes a curated set of tools used for agent training but doesn’t provide concrete examples or details on these tools in the main text or the appendix. Including examples, especially in an appendix, would improve transparency around the toolset design and selection criteria. This addition would allow readers to better understand the diversity and complexity of tasks the agents are trained on, as well as any limitations or biases in the tool curation process.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
1) How does the LAM Simulator handle situations where the task requirements change dynamically, or where tools malfunction during execution? Would it be able to generalize to such cases?
2) Have you considered applying the LAM Simulator to environments that involve real-time multi-agent interactions or more complex tool dependencies?
3) Can you provide more detailed insights into how the feedback mechanisms evolve as the agent performs tasks over time? Are there diminishing returns to feedback as the agent improves?
4) How does the action verification mechanism scale with an increasing number of tools or tool parameters? Does it introduce any computational overhead that might limit real-time applicability?
1) One of the key strengths is the ability of the LAM Simulator to automate feedback and reduce the need for human intervention. This is crucial for scaling agentic models and training on more extensive datasets without the burden of manual curation.
2) The empirical results show significant performance improvements on the ToolEval benchmark. The LAM-Sim-8x7B model consistently outperforms other state-of-the-art alternatives, showcasing the potential of the proposed framework.
3) The LAM Simulator integrates action verification mechanisms (e.g., syntax verification, tool name validation), which significantly reduce errors related to tool usage, helping agents perform more reliably in tasks involving multiple tools.
This paper introduces the LAM Simulator, a framework designed to enhance the training and development of Large Action Models (LAMs) for AI agents. The LAM Simulator aims to mitigate the reliance on supervised learning and manual data curation by enabling online exploration of agentic tasks with real-time, high-quality feedback. The framework provides a diverse set of tasks, tools, and feedback mechanisms to help agents learn more effectively. The paper demonstrates significant performance improvements using the LAM Simulator, with models such as LAM-Sim-8x7B showing an 18.54% improvement over the base model on the ToolEval benchmark.
1) The tasks used in the evaluation are relatively constrained and do not reflect the complexity of real-world agent tasks. The paper could have included experiments in more diverse environments, such as dynamic multi-agent systems or open-ended tasks, to demonstrate broader applicability.
2) While the framework’s feedback loop is central to its design, the paper does not sufficiently explore its effectiveness. It would have been useful to include ablation studies or case studies showing how feedback at different stages (e.g., intermediate actions versus final steps) influences learning outcomes.
3) The paper does not adequately address how well the LAM Simulator scales to more complex environments or to tasks that require real-time interactions with a broader set of tools. The reliance on predefined tasks and tools may limit its generalization to open-world or unstructured environments.
Advancing Large Action Model Training for Agent via Online Exploration and Feedback Simulation
@inproceedings{
anonymous2024lam,
title={{LAM} Simulator: Advancing Large Action Model Training for Agent via Online Exploration and Feedback Simulation},
author={Anonymous},
booktitle={Submitted to The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations},
year={2024},
url={https://openreview.net/forum?id=Dpqw0namg3},
note={under review}
}
Large Action Models (LAMs) for AI agents have significant potential, but their development is often constrained by the reliance on supervised learning and manual data curation, which are both time-consuming and costly. To address these limitations, we present the LAM Simulator, a comprehensive framework designed for online exploration of agentic tasks with high-quality feedback. This framework includes a curated set of high-quality agentic tasks, a diverse collection of tools, and an interactive environment where agent models can call tools, receive execution responses, and obtain action feedback. Our findings indicate that the LAM Simulator significantly enhances model performance and effectively identifies and addresses potential issues. Specifically, our model, LAM-Sim-8x7B, demonstrates an 18.54\% improvement over its base LAM and significantly outperforms other state-of-the-art alternatives on ToolEval benchmark. Furthermore, we have demonstrated that LLMs lacking in agentic capability can greatly benefit from the implementation of LAM Simulator. Our experiments with a model trained on Mixtral-8x7B-Instruct-v0.1 have yielded a doubling to tripling of performance. Remarkably, the data construction process for training these models requires minimal human intervention, making the LAM Simulator a robust framework for accelerating the development of AI agents.
I certify that there is no URL (e.g., github page) that could be used to find authors’ identity.
I acknowledge that I and all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the ICLR Code of Ethics.
LLMs Agent; Self-learning Reinforcement Learning; Data Generation
I certify that there is no acknowledgement section in this submission for double blind review.
/pdf/5000f7d6e202ddd52ba27d30576ac5b414a108c0.pdf
generative models
I understand the reciprocal reviewing requirement as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/CallForPapers. If none of the authors are registered as a reviewer, it may result in a desk rejection at the discretion of the program chairs. To request an exception, please complete this form at https://forms.gle/Huojr6VjkFxiQsUp6.
I certify that this submission complies with the submission instructions as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/AuthorGuide.
LAM Simulator: Advancing Large Action Model Training for Agent via Online Exploration and Feedback Simulation
ICLR 2025 Conference Submission
ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission