Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Rethinking the Role of Entropy in Optimizing Tool-Use Behaviors for Large Language Model Agents

Zeping Li, Hongru Wang, Yiwen Zhao, Guanhua Chen, Yixia Li, Keyang Chen, Yixin Cao, Guangnan Ye, Hongfeng Chai, Zhenfei Yin · Feb 2, 2026 · Citations: 0

Data freshness

Extraction: Stale

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Mar 24, 2026, 10:49 AM

Stale

Extraction refreshed

Mar 24, 2026, 10:49 AM

Stale

Extraction source

Persisted extraction

Confidence unavailable

Abstract

Tool-using agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in tasks such as mathematical reasoning and multi-hop question answering. However, in long trajectories, agents often trigger excessive and low-quality tool calls, increasing latency and degrading inference performance, making managing tool-use behavior challenging. In this work, we conduct entropy-based pilot experiments and observe a strong positive correlation between entropy reduction and high-quality tool calls. Building on this finding, we propose using entropy reduction as a supervisory signal and design two reward strategies to address the differing needs of optimizing tool-use behavior. Sparse outcome rewards provide coarse, trajectory-level guidance to improve efficiency, while dense process rewards offer fine-grained supervision to enhance performance. Experiments across diverse domains show that both reward designs improve tool-use behavior: the former reduces tool calls by 72.07% compared to the average of baselines, while the latter improves performance by 22.27%. These results position entropy reduction as a key mechanism for enhancing tool-use behavior, enabling agents to be more adaptive in real-world applications.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

Trust level

Provisional

Eval-Fit Score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence: Provisional

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

provisional

None explicit

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: Tool-using agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in tasks such as mathematical reasoning and multi-hop question answering.

Evaluation Modes

provisional

None explicit

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

Validate eval design from full paper text.

Evidence snippet: Tool-using agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in tasks such as mathematical reasoning and multi-hop question answering.

Quality Controls

provisional

Not reported

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: Tool-using agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in tasks such as mathematical reasoning and multi-hop question answering.

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional

Not extracted

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Tool-using agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in tasks such as mathematical reasoning and multi-hop question answering.

Reported Metrics

provisional

Not extracted

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

No metric anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Tool-using agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in tasks such as mathematical reasoning and multi-hop question answering.

Rater Population

provisional

Unknown

Confidence: Provisional Source: Persisted extraction inferred

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: Tool-using agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in tasks such as mathematical reasoning and multi-hop question answering.

Human Data Lens

Structured extraction is still processing. Below are provisional signals inferred from abstract text only.

  • Potential human-data signal: No explicit human-data keywords detected.
  • Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Lens

Evaluation fields are currently inferred heuristically from abstract text.

  • Potential evaluation modes: No explicit eval keywords detected.
  • Potential metric signals: No metric keywords detected.
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

Tool-using agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in tasks such as mathematical reasoning and multi-hop question answering.

Generated Mar 24, 2026, 10:49 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • Tool-using agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in tasks such as mathematical reasoning and multi-hop question answering.
  • However, in long trajectories, agents often trigger excessive and low-quality tool calls, increasing latency and degrading inference performance, making managing tool-use behavior challenging.
  • In this work, we conduct entropy-based pilot experiments and observe a strong positive correlation between entropy reduction and high-quality tool calls.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.