Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper critiques the common approach in multi-turn reinforcement learning (RL) that treats credit assignment as a targeting problem, revealing that such methods often fail in low-verifier information density regimes. By analyzing the impact of reward distribution on agent performance, the authors demonstrate that a continuous dense reward outperforms sparse binary rewards, while targeting specific turns can be detrimental. The findings suggest that effective credit assignment relies more on coverage than on targeting, with implications for designing more efficient RL systems.
Targeting credit assignment in multi-turn RL can be counterproductive, as uniform reward distribution consistently outperforms sparse rewards in low-information density scenarios.
Multi-turn agentic RL increasingly treats credit assignment as a targeting problem: given a terminal verifiable reward, per-turn methods localize credit onto the turns that mattered. We identify the structural quantity that predicts when this is the right move, the verifier information density V_d = k/C (the fraction of an agent's C-step causal chain whose per-turn correctness the verifier exposes), and show that terminal-state verifiers sit deep in a low-V_d regime where targeting is the wrong axis. In controlled shared-rollout comparisons on tau^2-bench that separate reward density from credit geometry, a continuous dense reward spread uniformly beats the sparse binary outcome reward (net-harmful on 4/5 seeds), while concentrating the same advantage on progress turns or on random turns is equally harmful: targeting is second-order. The mechanism is coverage: terminal-state verification collapses the observable signal to a single final-write turn (k=1 in 98% of rollouts) while success requires a 5-8 step chain of prerequisite tool calls. A synthetic phase boundary places the crossover at V_d* ~ 0.8, whereas measured V_d is ~0.15 on tau^2-bench and ~0.4 on BFCL V3; uniform also wins on BFCL, where a matched-concentration shuffled control is negative on 8/8 seeds. The effect reproduces across model families on ToolACE-2-8B (Delta = -0.048 over 32 pre-registered seeds; an independent 20-seed replication is itself significant), and a pre-registered matched-budget breadth sweep traces a monotone dose-response whose deficit vanishes only at full chain coverage, with a reward-to-go arm reaching full-coverage parity. Uniform redistribution is the zero-information coverage default that per-turn schemes must beat; we contribute the matched-concentration shuffled control that any targeting claim should clear.
