Abstract:Recent agent benchmarks increasingly ground evaluation in executable environments, from code repair to web navigation, app APIs, and function calling. Yet completing consequential work beyond code requires more than producing a plausible response or valid tool call: agents must gather missing information over multiple turns, follow domain policies, coordinate dependent tools, and realize the correct persistent state transition without collateral effects. In this paper, we introduce Thinkingbox, a sandbox for tool-agent-user interaction that provides isolated MCP-compatible tool sessions, complete execution traces, and outcome evaluation over terminal backend state. Built on this sandbox, Thinkingbox-bench contains 507 policy-conditioned workflows across numerous scenarios, including retail, hospitality, auto insurance, neobank internal IT, and consulting IT/HR support. Each attempt is evaluated by task-specific executable checks that accept valid trajectories while rejecting wrong, missing, or extra effects; designated tasks additionally check required properties of the final response. Across proprietary and open-weight models, the strongest achieves 65.36% pass@1, but only 25.25% pass^20. Moreover, many failed trials show clean termination and valid state-changing actions, showing that response or tool-call-level signals are not clear proxies for end-to-end task completion. Thinkingbox-bench reveals a large gap between occasionally finding a successful trajectory and reliably completing stateful business tasks. We release both Thinkingbox and Thinkingbox-Bench: https://github.com/microsoft/thinkingbox
Abstract:In this work, we review research studies that combine Reinforcement Learning (RL) and Large Language Models (LLMs), two areas that owe their momentum to the development of deep neural networks. We propose a novel taxonomy of three main classes based on the way that the two model types interact with each other. The first class, RL4LLM, includes studies where RL is leveraged to improve the performance of LLMs on tasks related to Natural Language Processing. L4LLM is divided into two sub-categories depending on whether RL is used to directly fine-tune an existing LLM or to improve the prompt of the LLM. In the second class, LLM4RL, an LLM assists the training of an RL model that performs a task that is not inherently related to natural language. We further break down LLM4RL based on the component of the RL training framework that the LLM assists or replaces, namely reward shaping, goal generation, and policy function. Finally, in the third class, RL+LLM, an LLM and an RL agent are embedded in a common planning framework without either of them contributing to training or fine-tuning of the other. We further branch this class to distinguish between studies with and without natural language feedback. We use this taxonomy to explore the motivations behind the synergy of LLMs and RL and explain the reasons for its success, while pinpointing potential shortcomings and areas where further research is needed, as well as alternative methodologies that serve the same goal.