English

What Do Agents Learn from Trajectory-SFT: Semantics or Interfaces?

Machine Learning 2026-02-03 v1

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/.

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.2602.01611,
  title  = {What Do Agents Learn from Trajectory-SFT: Semantics or Interfaces?},
  author = {Weizheng Gu and Chengze Li and Zhuohao Yu and Mengyuan Sun and Zhibang Yang and Wei Wang and Hongrui Jia and Shikun Zhang and Wei Ye},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.01611},
  year   = {2026}
}
R2 v1 2026-07-01T09:30:52.988Z