Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2508.05614

GroundAct: Can LLM Agents Ground Actions in Environmental States?

Zixuan Wang·Dingming Li·Hongxing Li·Yanrui Miao·Shuo Chen·Yuchen Yan·Wenqi Zhang·Yongliang Shen·Weiming Lu·Jun Xiao·Yueting Zhuang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

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.

Explore related subjects

cs.CLcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Zixuan Wang, Dingming Li, Hongxing Li, Yanrui Miao, Shuo Chen, Yuchen Yan, Wenqi Zhang, Yongliang Shen, Weiming Lu, Jun Xiao, Yueting Zhuang. 2026-05-28. GroundAct: Can LLM Agents Ground Actions in Environmental States?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.05614

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

DA-Cramming: Enhancing Cost-Effective Language Model Pretraining with Dependency Agreement Integration

Pretraining language models is still a challenge for many researchers due to its substantial computational costs. As such, there is growing interest in developing more affordable pretraining methods. One notable advancement in this area is the Cramming technique (Geiping and Goldstein, 2022), which enables the pretraining of BERT-style language models using just one GPU in a single day. Building on this innovative approach, we introduce the Dependency Agreement Cramming (DA-Cramming), an efficient framework that integrates information about dependency agreements into the pretraining process. Unlike existing methods that leverage similar semantic information during finetuning, our approach represents a pioneering effort focusing on enhancing the foundational language understanding with semantic information during pretraining. We meticulously design a dual-stage pretraining work flow with four dedicated submodels to capture representative dependency agreements at the chunk level, effectively transforming these agreements into embeddings to benefit the pretraining. Extensive empirical results demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms previous methods across various tasks.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

BigO(Bench): Can LLMs Generate Code with Controlled Time and Space Complexity?

We introduce BigO(Bench), a novel coding benchmark designed to evaluate the capabilities of generative language models in understanding and generating code with specified time and space complexities. This benchmark addresses the gap in current evaluations that often overlook the ability of models to comprehend and produce code constrained by computational complexity. BigO(Bench) includes tooling to infer the algorithmic complexity of any Python function from profiling measurements, including human- or LLM-generated solutions. BigO(Bench) also includes of set of 3,105 coding problems and 1,190,250 solutions from Code Contests annotated with inferred (synthetic) time and space complexity labels from the complexity framework, as well as corresponding runtime and memory footprint values for a large set of input sizes. We present results from evaluating multiple state-of-the-art language models on this benchmark, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses in handling complexity requirements. In particular, token-space reasoning models are unrivaled in code generation but not in complexity understanding, hinting that they may not generalize well to tasks for which no reward was given at training time.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

UR$^2$: Unify RAG and Reasoning through Reinforcement Learning

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong capabilities through two complementary paradigms: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) for knowledge grounding and Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) for complex reasoning. However, existing attempts to unify these paradigms remain narrow in scope, typically limited to open-domain QA with fixed retrieval settings, which constrains generalization to broader domains. To address this limitation, we propose UR$^2$ (Unified RAG and Reasoning)), a general reinforcement learning framework that dynamically coordinates retrieval and reasoning. UR$^2$ introduces two key designs: a difficulty-aware curriculum that selectively invokes retrieval only for challenging instances, and a hybrid knowledge access strategy that combines domain-specific offline corpora with on-the-fly LLM-generated summaries. Together, these components mitigate the imbalance between retrieval and reasoning and improve robustness to noisy information. Experiments on open-domain QA, MMLU-Pro, medical, and mathematical reasoning tasks show that UR$^2$, built on Qwen-2.5-3/7B and LLaMA-3.1-8B, consistently outperforms existing RAG and RL baselines, and achieves performance comparable to GPT-4o-mini and GPT-4.1-mini on several benchmarks. Code, models, and data are available at https://github.com/Tsinghua-dhy/UR2.

cs.CL↗