Enhancing Agent Learning through World Dynamics Modeling
Open accessAbstract
Large language models (LLMs) have been increasingly applied to tasks in language understanding and interactive decision-making, with their impressive performance largely attributed to the extensive domain knowledge embedded within them. However, the depth and breadth of this knowledge can vary across domains. Many existing approaches assume that LLMs possess a comprehensive understanding of their environment, often overlooking potential gaps in their grasp of actual world dynamics. To address this, we introduce Discover, Verify, and Evolve (DiVE), a framework that discovers world dynamics from a small number of demonstrations, verifies the accuracy of these dynamics, and evolves new, advanced dynamics tailored to the current situation. Through extensive evaluations, we assess the impact of each component on performance and compare the dynamics generated by DiVE to human-annotated dynamics. Our results show that LLMs guided by DiVE make more informed decisions, achieving rewards comparable to human players in the Crafter environment and surpassing methods that require prior task-specific training in the MiniHack environment.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Sun et al. (2024) enables agents to infer and validate world rules from demonstrations.
“Sun et al. (2024) enables agents to infer and validate world rules from demonstrations”
From From Storage to Experience: A Survey on the Evolution of LLM Agent Memory Mechanisms (2026) · cites this paper as Sun et al., 2024
Cited by
Sorted by citations
From Storage to Experience: A Survey on the Evolution of LLM Agent Memory Mechanisms
Luo, J., Tian, Y., Cao, C., Luo, Z., Lin, H., Li, K., Kong, C., Yang, R., & Ma, J. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.2069 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“This approach focuses on the utilization of outcomes from the real world to proactively optimize policies for behavior (Sun et al., 2024; Yan et al., 2025b,a) and calibrate internal models of the world (Sun et al., 2024; Xiao et al., 2025; Sun et al., 2025b).”
- Authors
- Sun, Z., Shi, H., Côté, M.-A., Berseth, G., Yuan, X., & Liu, B.
- Affiliations
- Mila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute (CA)
- Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CA)
- Microsoft Research Montréal (Canada) (CA)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2407.17695
- OpenAlex
- W4402618159
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Papyrus : Institutional Repository (Université de Montréal) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Canadian Institute for Advanced Research
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (rgpin-2021-03115)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence in Games
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Keywords
- agent learning, large language models, interactive decision making, demonstration-based learning, game environments
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review