When Does On-Policy Interaction Help? Representational Tradeoffs in Value-Based Imitation Learning

Imitation learning (IL)---training an agent to replicate expert behavior from demonstrations---underpins applications from robotics to language model training. Standard approaches such as Behavior Cloning (BC) are known to suffer from compounding errors and performance plateaus, particularly when the learner cannot perfectly represent the expert's policy (as is typical, e.g., in distillation). Two interventions are widely understood empirically to improve performance: querying the expert interactively along the learner's own trajectories, and using value function estimation en route to generating a policy rather than directly fitting the expert's full action distribution. We investigate the nature of these improvements and their potentially surprising interplay. Our main finding is that expert interaction relaxes the representational demands on the learner: one only needs a model capable of realizing the expert's value function, bypassing the (often stricter) requirement of realizing the expert's policy itself. Concretely, we introduce OVI, an interactive on-policy IL algorithm that is statistically efficient whenever the learner can represent the expert's value function and computationally efficient given access to a linear maximization oracle. We complement this with a negative result showing that interaction is necessary. Namely, without stronger assumptions beyond expert-value realizability alone, any offline IL algorithm must scale with the complexity of the expert policy class. Our findings bear out empirically. OVI outperforms offline policy-based (BC), interactive policy-based (DAgger), and offline value-based IL methods, with the largest gains when the learner network is substantially less expressive than the expert's.

KeySI: An Interaction Framework for Tuning Text Embeddings Based on Human Feedback

In large-scale text analysis tasks, pre-trained language models are often used to embed text corpora for downstream analysis. However, such models may struggle to capture domain-specific semantics and adapting them typically requires large amounts of labeled data and technical expertise to implement training pipelines. Recent approaches have demonstrated how visual interactions in document projections can capture human feedback as training signals for model tuning. However, these methods operate on document-level feedback, which requires users to open and assess individual documents in order to provide effective feedback. In this paper, we propose KeySI, an interaction framework that enables feature-level feedback through keyword-based concept specification. Users specify feedback by organizing extracted keywords into groups representing concepts, which KeySI translates into document-level supervision for subsequent tuning. By operating on keywords as the primary interaction medium, KeySI reduces the need for manual document inspection and labeling and lowers the barrier to adapting embedding models. We present a prototype implementation that, given a corpus, curates representative keywords, visualizes keywords and document embeddings via dimensionality reduction, allows interactive specification of keyword groups, and supports iterative refinement through system feedback. We evaluate KeySI through a user study, usage scenarios, and quantitative experiments demonstrating its effectiveness in capturing user intent and improving embedding alignment.

Can LLM Agents Infer World Models? Evidence from Agentic Automata Learning

We propose agentic automata learning to evaluate the extent to which tool-calling LLM agents can uncover hidden environments through interaction. In our setup, an agent should uncover a hidden deterministic finite automaton (DFA) by interacting with an oracle through (1) membership queries ("Does this string belong to the target language?") and (2) equivalence queries ("Is this the target DFA?"). This yields a scalable testbed with controlled task complexity, measurable interaction efficiency, and strong baselines (classic automata-learning algorithms). Evaluating state-of-the-art LLMs, we find that performance drops sharply as DFA size increases. Reasoning models are markedly stronger than non-reasoning models, yet trajectory analyses reveal recurring failures in query planning, evidence integration, and hypothesis construction. Overall, our results show that current LLM agents can sometimes perform non-trivial interactive discovery, but remain far less robust and efficient than classic algorithms for the task.