Empowering LLM Agents with Zero-Shot Optimal Decision-Making through Q-learning
Large language models;Agent;Optimal decision-making
Yes
No ethics review needed.
1. Can you provide more theoretical justification or proofs for the convergence properties of Q-learning within the LLM-based imagination space? Specifically, under what conditions does MLAQ guarantee convergence to an optimal policy?

2. Given that MLAQ relies heavily on the LLM's self-examination for correcting imaginary transitions, how robust is the framework in handling LLM hallucinations? Have you explored scenarios where the LLM produces incorrect or inconsistent outputs, and if so, how does MLAQ mitigate this risk?

3. Could you discuss how sensitive MLAQ’s performance is to the hyperparameters used in the UCB variant (e.g., coefficients and confidence bounds)? Understanding this could help gauge the stability and generality of the method across different domains.

4. The MLAQ framework appears computationally intensive due to iterative Q-learning and the replay buffer management. Could you elaborate on the computational demands of MLAQ relative to traditional LLM agents? Are there strategies within the framework to reduce this overhead?

5. Have you tested MLAQ in more open-ended or unstructured environments, such as robotic tasks with real-world constraints (e.g., noisy sensors, dynamic obstacles)? If not, do you foresee any limitations or necessary modifications to make the model applicable to such environments?

6. Could you share insights on the types of tasks or domains where MLAQ may struggle to achieve optimal decision-making? Understanding these limitations can help contextualize the framework’s applicability.

7. Do you see potential for enhancing the LLM-based self-examination process, perhaps by combining it with non-LLM-based checks? For instance, could integrating environmental feedback more dynamically (e.g., through real-time adaptive learning) reduce reliance on the LLM’s introspective accuracy?
1. MLAQ presents a novel integration of Q-learning and LLMs, using an LLM-based imagination space to enable optimal decision-making without direct environmental data. This imaginative interaction is a valuable innovation, given the limitations of previous approaches relying heavily on environmental feedback.

2 The UCB variant and mixed-examination mechanisms are technically sound and provide meaningful contributions. These components contribute to reducing computational requirements and minimizing regret, which are crucial in complex decision-making scenarios.

3 The empirical results, showing over 90% optimal success in challenging benchmarks, convincingly demonstrate MLAQ's ability to outperform existing LLM agents. The performance on long-horizon tasks suggests MLAQ’s potential for real-world applications requiring complex decision-making sequences.

4 The proposed MLAQ framework appears modular and adaptable, making it feasible for extension to various domains and applications, including future deployment on physical robotic platforms.
This paper proposes the Model-based LLM Agent with Q-Learning (MLAQ) to address the gap in optimal decision-making capabilities for large language model (LLM) agents. By combining Q-learning with LLMs, MLAQ achieves zero-shot optimal decision-making by using an LLM-generated imagination space, enabling the agent to derive policies without direct environmental interaction. Notably, the authors introduce a UCB variant to balance exploration and exploitation, and a mixed-examination mechanism to enhance the quality of imaginary data. The framework shows superior performance across single-agent and multi-agent benchmarks (BlocksWorld and RoCo-benchmark), surpassing existing methods in achieving optimal decisions.
1. While the technical elements (such as the UCB variant) are well-motivated, the theoretical analysis could be expanded, especially concerning the convergence properties of Q-learning within the LLM-based imagination space. Further proofs would add rigor to the framework's guarantees.

2. The mixed-examination mechanism, while useful, places a considerable dependency on LLM self-correction capabilities. Although current models like GPT-4 demonstrate adequate self-examination, reliance on this might limit robustness, especially if the model is deployed in new or noisy environments where the LLM might hallucinate.

3. The method has been evaluated on BlocksWorld and RoCo-benchmark, which are well-structured tasks. Further evaluations in more unstructured environments could provide insight into the adaptability of MLAQ in real-world scenarios with higher variability.
Yes
The webpage of this paper includes a GitHub link with a non-anonymized account.
Yes, Other reasons (please specify below)
1. Since the LLM here serves as a model-based simulator of the real environment and the policy is generated by the Q-function, is it appropreiate to call this "LLM agent"? The action or policy is not diorectly generated by LLM, could this framework be more accurately described as a Q-learning agent that uses an LLM-based world model?

2. I'm still unclear about what the training data is for Q-planner. Is it trained on the synthetic step-wise reward or the ground truth trajectories which is from the interaction with environment?
1. The paper claims an important point of "making optimal decisions" and is well-written. 

2. The authors claim that this model is the first work to perform complete RL-based optimization process based on MDP scenario. The idea of generating imaginary transitions with LLMs for Q-learning optimize the policy makes sense to me. 

3. The experimental results are good in both tasks.
The paper presents a novel approach for integrating Q-learning with Large Language Models (LLMs) to enable zero-shot optimal decision-making. The authors propose a MLAQ framework, which includes Q-planner, a memory module, and an imagination space. The model leverage LLM as world model for agent to optimize its decision-making using Q-learning without relying on environmental interactions. The framwork also recruits a Mixed-Examination mechanism for transition verification. Finally, the experiments results outperforms existing methods in optimal decision-making tasks.
1. My biggest concern is about the cost of this framework. While the paper claims that the MLAQ framework can operate without direct interaction with environmental tools by leveraging an LLM-based imagination space, this approach may still incur significant computational and financial costs. LLM interactions, especially those involving step-by-step task simulations, are resource-intensive in terms of both token usage and processing time. Additionally, in ablation experiments, tasks with 8 steps in BlocksWorld were shown to consume at least 40k tokens, which may be expensive for scaling up to complex tasks or multi-agent scenarios. The reliance on LLMs for generating and validating transitions could offset the savings from not interacting with real environments, especially if these transitions require multiple iterations for accuracy.

2. Although MLAQ aims to minimize reliance on real-world data, it still requires occasional feedback from the environment to correct inaccuracies in LLM-generated transitions. In Algorithm 1, it seems the stepwise reward is still from the environment. Then, how does the model deal with sparse or delayed reward situation, e.g. in Figure 3 you can only get binary reward at the last step? In this way, the LLM world model is only used for simulate success trajectories or also provide reward? 

3. The LLM-based world model is designed to act as a proxy for real environmental interactions, but this approach may have inherent limitations, especially for tasks requiring high-fidelity simulations or complex physical dynamics. To be more specific, LLMs understanding of actions and outcomes might not always align with real-world behaviors. Does author have more analysis on this?
Yes
No ethics review needed.
- Please see my questions in the weakness session
- The idea of using LLM to simulate world models is novel, and the authors give a detailed description of how to leverage LLMs to construct the model to simulate the environment;
- The verification part can guarantee that the model is more accurate than naively simulating the trajectories;

- Empirical experiments show that the idea can achieve significantly better performance, especially for long trajectories;
In this paper, the authors present a Model-based LLM Agent with Q-learning (MLAQ), which employs Q-learning to derive optimal policies from transitions within memory. Unlike classic RL agents that collect data via environment interactions, MLAG leverages LLM to perform imaginary interactions where LLM can be served or viewed as a world model for the environment simulation. This allows the policies to learn to optimize under the imaginary space. Further, the authors employ a mixed-examination mechanism that utilizes environmental interaction and LLM-based self-examine to enhance the quality of imaginary success. Empirical experiments show that the method can significantly improve the LLM agent performance on several benchmarks, showing promising results.
- The idea is only evaluated on a very toy game domain. It would be good to see and discuss whether the method can be extended to more complex agent benchmarks, such as function calling, tau-bench, etc.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
see weaknesses
- Addresses an interesting problem of enabling LLMs to solve long-horizon tasks
- Strong performance on prior benchmarks
- Comparisons to relevant prior works
- Ablations confirm the importance of various components in BlocksWorld
This paper considers the problem of enabling LLM agents to complete long-horizon tasks. To accomplish this, the paper proposes a method that combines Q-learning, a way to generate imaginary data using LLMs, an MCTS-style planner that acts in that space, a mechanism to improve the quality of the imaginary data, and a variant of UCB that facilitates exploration.
Overall, the clarity of the writing prevents me from recommending this paper for acceptance. I tried reading parts of the paper several times, but I unfortunately still don't understand truly how the method works. The writing seems both hard to follow/understand and missing important information. (I have published papers in the realm of LLMs, LLM agents, Q-learning/reinforcement learning, and model-based RL, so I should have sufficient background to understand the submission.)

It's hard to go through every part of the paper and describe what is hard to follow or missing, but here are a few examples:
- In the intro: It’s not clear what problem statement this paper is aiming to address. The sentences do not have a clear train-of-thought, and concepts are introduced without fully explaining them / without giving concrete examples.
- Important details are missing: how is the Q-function represented? The preliminaries describe a tabular representation, but this doesn’t seem applicable to the language setting. Is there a policy improvement step using the Q-function? If so, how is it done? How do each of the components interact? What concretely is the action space being considered? What is the breadth of the actions that the LLM can take?
- The term “environmental tools” is used extensively, but it’s not entirely clear what it means. It hasn't been used in prior papers to my knowledge, and isn't described clearly in this paper. It reminds me of LLM "tools", but based on the brief description in the intro, this seems incorrect and it seems to more be referring to assumptions that the method makes.
- The paper is not self-contained, and assumes detailed knowledge of specific prior works, e.g. Mandi et al to understand the RoCo task.
- The figures are helpful, but quite abstract
- The abstract refers to a website (https://mlaq.site/) that is empty
- Qualitative examples of the agent performance would be helpful
- Which LLM is used in the experiments? How large is it?


Secondarily, the method is very complex involving many different components. This fact combined with the lack of clarity in the paper means that it would be impossible to implement the method based on the description in the paper. I appreciate the ablation study though.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
- What does this mean "the ground-truth available actions δ(s)"? Node selection is not clear. 
- The paper claimed for a zeros-shot approach! It is true but at the same time there is a lot of engineering part in the method like correct the imaginary transitions to refine the LLM-based world model, which makes the concept of zero-shot unsatisfied even though it is zero-shot!
- The criteria for the results are not enough! That should be proper comparison with other methods.
- The innovation of the initial idea is good but the works has a lot of engineering! The method needs to be reformed.
In this work, the authors develop an algorithm that combines the zero-shot capabilities of large language models (LLMs) with the decision-making strengths of reinforcement learning (RL). They introduce the Model-based LLM Agent with Q-Learning (MLAQ), which leverages Q-learning to derive optimal policies from transitions stored in memory. Unlike traditional RL agents that rely on data collected from direct environmental interactions, MLAQ constructs an "imagination space" based entirely on the LLM to simulate interactions and derive zero-shot policies. The results indicate that MLAQ achieves an optimal success rate of over 90% on tasks where other methods have struggled to perform effectively.
-  The abstraction and introduction is well written but the rest is not fluent. 
- LLM-based framework for an agent is the same as to decision transformers.  The author did not talk about that and even compare with this 
- The paper is not well-organized! Some terms need to be defined before going to the details of the method. 
- Some definitions are not clear: like what is exactly imagination space. 
- They said the work does not use environmental tools but they use T which is all information about the environment including actions, states, ...
- There are other type of works which are zero-shot and they paper did not mention them in either related work or introduction: Sub-goal Distillation: A Method to Improve Small Language Agents.
We achieve zero-shot optimal decision-making for LLM agents by integrating the respective advantages of LLMs and RL.
@inproceedings{
anonymous2024empowering,
title={Empowering {LLM} Agents with Zero-Shot Optimal Decision-Making through Q-learning},
author={Anonymous},
booktitle={Submitted to The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations},
year={2024},
url={https://openreview.net/forum?id=JsVIGVntnQ},
note={under review}
}
Large language models (LLMs) are trained on extensive text data to gain general comprehension capability. Current LLM agents leverage this ability to make zero- or few-shot decisions but fail in making optimal decisions, as LLMs inherently perform next-token prediction based on pre-trained probability distributions rather than maximizing expected future rewards. In contrast, agents trained via reinforcement learning (RL) could make optimal decisions but require extensive environmental data. In this work, we develop an algorithm that combines the zero-shot capabilities of LLMs with the optimal decision-making advantages of RL, referred to as the Model-based LLM Agent with Q-Learning (MLAQ). MLAQ employs Q-learning to derive optimal policies from transitions within memory. However, unlike RL agents that collect data from environmental interactions, MLAQ constructs an imagination space fully based on LLM to perform imaginary interactions for deriving zero-shot policies. Our proposed UCB variant generates imaginary data through interactions with the LLM-based world model, enabling a balance between exploration and exploitation while ensuring a sub-linear regret bound guaranteed by a theorem. Moreover, MLAQ employs a mixed-examination mechanism that utilizes environmental interactions and LLM-based self-examine to enhance the quality of imaginary data. We evaluate MLAQ in benchmarks that present significant challenges for existing LLM agents. Results show that MLAQ achieves a optimal rate of over 90% in tasks where other methods struggle to succeed. Additional experiments are conducted to reach the conclusion that introducing model-based RL into LLM agents shows significant potential for current LLMs to improve their optimal decision-making ability. Our interactive website is available at http://mlaq.site.
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.
Large language models Agent Optimal decision-making
I certify that there is no acknowledgement section in this submission for double blind review.
/pdf/1e78e3ef74161e16c1ce1e664afd53bc848b22e8.pdf
applications to robotics, autonomy, planning
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.
Empowering LLM Agents with Zero-Shot Optimal Decision-Making through Q-learning
ICLR 2025 Conference Submission
ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission