What Do Agents Learn from Trajectory-SFT: Semantics or Interfaces?
Weizheng Gu, Chengze Li, Zhuohao Yu, Mengyuan Sun, Zhibang Yang, Wei Wang, Hongrui Jia, Shikun Zhang, Wei Ye
Abstract
Large language models are increasingly evaluated as interactive agents, yet standard agent benchmarks conflate two qualitatively distinct sources of success: semantic tool-use and interface-specific interaction pattern memorization. Because both mechanisms can yield identical task success on the original interface, benchmark scores alone are not identifiable evidence of environment-invariant capability. We propose PIPE , a protocol-level evaluation augmentation for diagnosing interface reliance by minimally rewriting environment interfaces while preserving task semantics and execution behavior. Across 16 environments from AgentBench and AgentGym and a range of open-source and API-based agents, PIPE reveals that trajectory-SFT substantially amplifies interface shortcutting: trained agents degrade sharply under minimal interface rewrites, while non-trajectory-trained models remain largely stable. We further introduce Interface Reliance (IR), a counterbalanced alias-based metric that quantifies preference for training-time interfaces, and show that interface shortcutting exhibits environment-dependent, non-monotonic training dynamics that remain invisible under standard evaluation. Our code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/What-Do-Agents-Learn-from-Trajectory-SFT-Semantics-or-Interfaces--0831/.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 4de579cb-9210-497d-b130-7979fa2f2400Builds on12
- Reflexion: language agents with verbal reinforcement learningNoah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 5,828 citations
- WebShop: Towards Scalable Real-World Web Interaction with Grounded Language AgentsShunyu Yao, Howard Chen, John Yang, Karthik NarasimhanNeurIPS 2022 · 1,477 citations
- PandaLM: An Automatic Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Instruction Tuning OptimizationYidong Wang, Zhuohao Yu, Wenjin Yao, Zhengran Zeng et al.ICLR 2024 · 368 citations
- AgentGym: Evaluating and Training Large Language Model-based Agents across Diverse EnvironmentsZhiheng Xi, Yiwen Ding, Wenxiang Chen, Boyang Hong et al.ACL 2025 · 20 citations
- Agent Data Protocol: Unifying Datasets for Diverse, Effective Fine-tuning of LLM AgentsYueqi Song, Ketan Ramaneti, Zaid Sheikh, Ziru Chen et al.ICLR 2026 · 18 citations
Related papers
- TRAJECT-Bench: A Trajectory-Aware Benchmark for Evaluating Agentic Tool UsePengfei He, Zhenwei Dai, Bing He, Hui Liu et al.ICLR 2026 · 46 citations
- Beyond the Final Answer: Evaluating the Reasoning Trajectories of Tool-Augmented AgentsWonjoong Kim, Sangwu Park, Yeonjun In, Sein Kim et al.ICML 2026 · 15 citations
- Aligning Agents via Planning: A Benchmark for Trajectory-Level Reward ModelingJiaxuan Wang, Yulan Hu, Wenjin Yang, Zheng Pan et al.ACL 2026 · 1 citation
- Trajectory2Task: Training Robust Tool-Calling Agents with Synthesized Yet Verifiable Data for Complex User IntentsZiyi Wang, Yuxuan Lu, Yimeng Zhang, Pei Chen et al.ACL 2026 · 9 citations
- ComplexMCP: Evaluation of LLM Agents in Dynamic, Interdependent, and Large-Scale Tool SandboxYuanyang Li, Xue Yang, Longyue Wang, Weihua Luo et al.ICML 2026 · 1 citation
