Papers for

automated customer support teams

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Language models improve computer control tasks with verbal trial learning

VRL-Bench: Benchmarking agents on computer control tasks under finite trial budgets

Abstract: Learning from trial and error is a promising way to improve language agents on complex tasks such as computer control. Reflexion introduced verbal reinforcement learning, which turns failed trials into text that guides later attempts without updating model parameters. We introduce VRL-Bench, a harness for fair evaluation of trial-and-error learning under finite trial budgets. Across three models on MiniWoB and WebShop, we evaluate updates from several prominent verbal-memory methods spanning Reflexion and later work: each improves observed success over memory-free retry in some settings but reduces it in others. Replay experiments show that using reflection can reduce success rates, revealing a trade-off between exploiting experience and continued exploration. We propose VEX$^2$, a verbal exploration--exploitation scheduler that uses a language model to jointly select policies and allocate the remaining trial budget. VEX$^2$ is the only evaluated update to achieve positive observed success-rate gains over retry in all six settings.

Fri 11 SeptArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Learning how to control a computer by trying things out and learning from mistakes is hard because agents only get limited attempts. The authors study methods that use language to remember and reflect on failed tries to do better next time without changing their main programming. They test different approaches on tasks like web-based puzzles and online shopping simulations and find some methods help sometimes but hurt other times. To fix this, they create VEX², a way for the model to balance trying new things and using what it has learned, which consistently improves success across all tests.
Open 2609.12404v1

Negative self-distillation improves large language model reasoning skills

Negative Self-Distillation: Learning to Reason by Avoiding Flaws

Abstract: On-Policy Self-Distillation (OPSD) has emerged as a popular paradigm for large language model (LLM) self-improvement, allowing models to act as their own teachers by leveraging privileged information such as ground-truth solutions. However, recent findings indicate that OPSD can severely degrade the performance of LLMs on complex reasoning tasks: By forcing the student to imitate an artificially confident reasoning trace conditioned on privileged information, OPSD inadvertently suppresses expressions of uncertainty and penalizes the exploratory, self-corrective behaviors required to solve challenging problems. To address this, we introduce Negative Self-Distillation (NSD), a new framework that optimizes LLMs by diverging from flawed reasoning rather than imitating privileged solutions. Instead of relying on ground-truth answers or external supervision, NSD uses the model itself to generate a question-specific negative condition (eg, acting as a ``careless reasoner'') and pushes the student's distribution away from this self-generated negative teacher. Naively applying unlearning objectives to achieve this divergence is problematic, as flawed reasoning tokens are confounded with basic linguistic tokens; indiscriminately penalizing both risks catastrophically degrading the model's foundational language capabilities. We resolve this by designing a dynamic gating mechanism that automatically identifies and isolates reasoning-critical tokens, ensuring gradient updates target only behavioral flaws while preserving the model's linguistic priors. Empirically, NSD consistently outperforms OPSD and other label-free, self-bootstrapping reinforcement learning (RL) baselines.

Thu 10 SeptComputation and LanguageMachine Learning
The gist
Using current methods where a language model copies its own confident but possibly flawed answers can actually hurt its reasoning ability. The authors show that having models learn by avoiding their own mistakes, instead of imitating perfect answers, can lead to better reasoning. They created a way to identify only the parts of an answer that show errors and teach the model to avoid those while keeping its general language skills intact. Tests show this new method consistently works better than previous ones for reasoning tasks.
Open 2609.11699v1