Why Multi-Step Tool-Use Reinforcement Learning Collapses and How Supervisory Signals Fix It
Abstract
Research investigates how different supervisory signals and training strategies improve the stability and performance of large language models in tool-use tasks, addressing issues like catastrophic collapse and format sensitivity through interleaved supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning.
Tool use enables large language models (LLMs) to perform complex tasks, and recent agentic reinforcement learning (RL) methods show promise for enhancing model capabilities. However, RL alone often leads to instability or limited gains in tool-use tasks. In our experiments, some models exhibit catastrophic collapse, where performance abruptly drops and tool-invocation structures fail. The analysis reveals that these failures stem from unexpected probability spikes in specific control tokens, disrupting structured execution, yet the underlying tool-use capability remains intact, merely obscured by specific formats. To address this, we systematically investigate a diverse set of supervisory signals, including off-policy supervision, hint-based guidance, erroneous example supervision, and others, applied under both synchronous and interleaved training schemes. We find that interleaving supervised fine-tuning (SFT) with RL substantially improves stability, but exhibits degraded performance under format and content out-of-distribution (OOD) evaluation. We also analyze the impact of learning rates and generalization across settings. These results highlight the importance of understanding RL failures and demonstrate how diverse supervisory signals can guide exploratory learning, enabling robust training of LLMs for complex, multi-step tool-use tasks. Our Code is available at https://github.com/hypasd-art/Tool-RL-Box.
Community
The analysis of catastrophic collapse in multi-step tool-use RL is a critical find. We've all seen models suddenly 'forget' how to call a tool despite having the capability in the base weights; seeing this attributed to probability spikes in control tokens rather than a loss of logic is a huge distinction. Using supervisory signals to stabilize the structured execution makes a lot of sense for anyone building production agentic systems. It shifts the problem from 'teaching the model to reason' to 'maintaining the integrity of the output format' during RL. This is the kind of engineering-grounded insight that actually helps in deploying reliable agents.
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
- DeepTool: Scaling Interleaved Deliberation in Tool-Integrated Reasoning via Process-Supervised Reinforcement Learning (2026)
- SOD: Step-wise On-policy Distillation for Small Language Model Agents (2026)
- Exploring Agentic Tool-Calling Decisions via Uncertainty-Aligned Reinforcement Learning (2026)
- PACT: Privileged Trace Co-Training for Multi-Turn Tool-Use Agents (2026)
- SENTINEL: Failure-Driven Reinforcement Learning for Training Tool-Using Language Model Agents (2026)
- Pushing the Limits of LLM Tool Calling via Experiential Knowledge Integration and Activation (2026)
- AIR: Adaptive Interleaved Reasoning with Code in MLLMs (2026)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2606.26027 Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper