arxiv: 2604.09459 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-10 · 💻 cs.CL

Recognition: unknown

From Reasoning to Agentic: Credit Assignment in Reinforcement Learning for Large Language Models

Chenchen Zhang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL

keywords credit assignmentreinforcement learninglarge language modelsreasoning RLagentic RLprocess reward modelshindsight counterfactual analysisMDP reformulation

0 comments

The pith

Credit assignment in LLM reinforcement learning requires distinct strategies for reasoning chains versus multi-turn agent interactions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper surveys methods for solving the credit assignment problem in reinforcement learning for large language models. In reasoning RL, credit must be assigned across long token sequences in a single generation, while in agentic RL it spans multiple turns with stochastic environments. By organizing 47 methods into a taxonomy of granularity and methodology, it shows that reasoning approaches are maturing around process rewards and group comparisons, whereas agentic settings drive new ideas like counterfactual hindsight. A sympathetic reader would care because better credit assignment enables training LLMs on complex, long-horizon tasks that current outcome-only rewards cannot handle effectively.

Core claim

The synthesis suggests that the shift from reasoning to agentic RL complicates and reshapes the credit assignment landscape: reasoning CA is maturing around process reward models and critic-free group comparison, while agentic CA is driving genuinely new approaches -- hindsight counterfactual analysis, privileged asymmetric critics, and turn-level MDP reformulations -- that have no direct precedent in reasoning RL.

What carries the argument

A two-dimensional taxonomy classifying credit assignment methods by assignment granularity (token, segment, step, turn, multi-agent) and methodology (Monte Carlo, temporal difference, model-based, game-theoretic, information-theoretic).

If this is right

Process reward models and critic-free group comparison will become standard for reasoning RL tasks.
Hindsight counterfactual analysis will be key for handling partial observability in agentic RL.
The provided machine-readable inventory will allow researchers to quickly identify suitable baselines.
Future work should use the reporting checklist to ensure methodological gaps are addressed.
Benchmark protocols with controlled bifurcation tasks will enable fair comparisons of CA methods.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The distinction between reasoning and agentic CA could guide development of hybrid training regimes that combine both.
Turn-level MDP reformulations might generalize to other sequential decision problems outside language models.
The decision tree for method selection could be validated through empirical studies on diverse tasks.
Connections to classic RL credit assignment in non-LLM domains may reveal transferable insights.

Load-bearing premise

That the 47 selected methods and the two-dimensional taxonomy adequately capture the full range of credit assignment challenges and solutions in both reasoning and agentic regimes without significant omissions or misclassifications.

What would settle it

Discovery of a substantial number of relevant papers published between 2024 and early 2026 that were not included in the survey of 47 methods, or a new CA approach that cannot be classified using the proposed granularity and methodology dimensions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09459 by Chenchen Zhang.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Two-dimensional taxonomy of credit assignment methods for LLM RL, organized by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Hierarchical taxonomy of all 47 credit assignment methods reviewed in this survey. Meth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Method selection decision tree for credit assignment in LLM RL. This reflects the authors’ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Temporal distribution of credit assignment papers for LLM RL covered in this paper. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Reinforcement learning (RL) for large language models (LLMs) increasingly relies on sparse, outcome-level rewards -- yet determining which actions within a long trajectory caused the outcome remains difficult. This credit assignment (CA) problem manifests in two regimes: reasoning RL, where credit must be distributed across tokens and steps within a single chain-of-thought generation (500--30K+ tokens); and agentic RL, where multi-turn environment interaction introduces stochastic transitions, partial observability, and horizons of 100+ turns (100K--1M tokens), making episode-level credit increasingly uninformative. We survey 47 CA methods (41 core, 6 adjacent enablers) published between 2024 and early 2026, organizing them in a two-dimensional taxonomy by assignment granularity (token, segment, step, turn, multi-agent) and methodology (Monte Carlo, temporal difference, model-based, game-theoretic, information-theoretic). Beyond the survey itself, we contribute three reusable resources: (1) a structured, machine-readable paper inventory with taxonomy labels, baseline families, and evidence levels; (2) a reporting checklist for future CA papers, validated against the reviewed literature to identify systematic methodological gaps; and (3) a benchmark protocol specification with task families, metadata requirements, and controlled bifurcation tasks, accompanied by a method selection decision tree. Our synthesis suggests that the shift from reasoning to agentic RL complicates and reshapes the credit assignment landscape: reasoning CA is maturing around process reward models and critic-free group comparison, while agentic CA is driving genuinely new approaches -- hindsight counterfactual analysis, privileged asymmetric critics, and turn-level MDP reformulations -- that have no direct precedent in reasoning RL.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper surveys 47 credit assignment (CA) methods (41 core + 6 adjacent) in RL for LLMs published 2024–early 2026. It distinguishes reasoning RL (credit over 500–30K+ token CoT trajectories) from agentic RL (multi-turn interactions with 100+ turns and 100K–1M tokens). A two-dimensional taxonomy is introduced by granularity (token/segment/step/turn/multi-agent) and methodology (Monte Carlo/TD/model-based/game-theoretic/info-theoretic). Beyond the survey, it contributes a machine-readable paper inventory with taxonomy labels, a reporting checklist validated on the reviewed works, and a benchmark protocol with task families, metadata requirements, controlled bifurcation tasks, and a method-selection decision tree. The central synthesis states that reasoning CA is maturing around process reward models and critic-free group comparison, while agentic CA drives new approaches (hindsight counterfactual analysis, privileged asymmetric critics, turn-level MDP reformulations) with no direct precedent in reasoning RL.

Significance. If the taxonomy and classifications hold, the work supplies a timely, structured overview of an active subfield together with three reusable resources—the machine-readable inventory, the reporting checklist, and the benchmark protocol with decision tree—that directly address reproducibility and gap identification. These contributions are concrete strengths that could standardize future CA research in LLM RL.

major comments (2)

[§6] §6 (Synthesis): The claim that agentic CA methods such as hindsight counterfactual analysis and turn-level MDP reformulations have 'no direct precedent in reasoning RL' is load-bearing for the regime-split conclusion, yet rests on the 47-method inventory and two-dimensional taxonomy without an external completeness check or explicit cross-tabulation showing absence of bridging cases (e.g., a reasoning method using turn-level reformulation). An omitted or misclassified paper would falsify the 'genuinely new' assertion.
[§3] §3 (Taxonomy): The granularity axis (token/segment/step/turn/multi-agent) is central to separating reasoning from agentic regimes, but the boundary definitions between 'step' and 'turn' are not illustrated with concrete examples from the surveyed papers; this risks inconsistent labeling and weakens the taxonomy's ability to support the synthesis.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The parenthetical token ranges (500--30K+, 100K--1M) are useful but would benefit from one or two representative citations to ground the scale claims.
[Contributions] The reporting checklist is presented as validated against the reviewed literature; adding a short note on how many of the 47 papers were used for validation would increase transparency.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments on our survey of credit assignment methods in LLM reinforcement learning. The feedback highlights areas where additional clarity and transparency can strengthen the taxonomy and synthesis. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to improve rigor without altering the core contributions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§6] §6 (Synthesis): The claim that agentic CA methods such as hindsight counterfactual analysis and turn-level MDP reformulations have 'no direct precedent in reasoning RL' is load-bearing for the regime-split conclusion, yet rests on the 47-method inventory and two-dimensional taxonomy without an external completeness check or explicit cross-tabulation showing absence of bridging cases (e.g., a reasoning method using turn-level reformulation). An omitted or misclassified paper would falsify the 'genuinely new' assertion.

Authors: We appreciate the referee's emphasis on the load-bearing nature of this claim. Our assertion rests on a systematic review of all 47 methods (identified via arXiv searches, major venue proceedings from 2024–early 2026, and forward/backward citation tracking), with each classified according to the two-dimensional taxonomy. To directly address the concern, we will add an explicit cross-tabulation (as a new table in §6 or appendix) enumerating every method by granularity and methodology, with footnotes explaining classification decisions for borderline cases. This will transparently demonstrate the absence of bridging examples such as reasoning RL methods using turn-level reformulation. While no survey can claim absolute external completeness, the machine-readable inventory we contribute allows ongoing community validation and updates. We view this as a partial revision that bolsters the synthesis. revision: partial
Referee: [§3] §3 (Taxonomy): The granularity axis (token/segment/step/turn/multi-agent) is central to separating reasoning from agentic regimes, but the boundary definitions between 'step' and 'turn' are not illustrated with concrete examples from the surveyed papers; this risks inconsistent labeling and weakens the taxonomy's ability to support the synthesis.

Authors: We agree that explicit examples are necessary to ensure the taxonomy is unambiguous and usable by readers. In the revised §3, we will insert concrete illustrations for each granularity level, drawn from the surveyed papers. For 'step', we will reference process-supervised methods that assign credit at individual reasoning steps within a single CoT trajectory (e.g., citing specific PRM-based works). For 'turn', we will cite multi-turn agentic methods that treat each environment interaction as a distinct credit unit. Boundary clarifications will also be added, such as distinguishing long single-generation CoT (step-level) from explicit multi-turn loops with stochastic transitions (turn-level). These additions will directly support the regime distinction in the synthesis. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: survey of external literature with independent synthesis

full rationale

The paper surveys 47 external methods (41 core + 6 adjacent) from 2024-early 2026 literature and organizes them via a two-dimensional taxonomy (granularity: token/segment/step/turn/multi-agent; methodology: Monte Carlo/TD/model-based/game-theoretic/info-theoretic). The synthesis claim—that reasoning CA matures around process reward models and critic-free group comparison while agentic CA introduces hindsight counterfactual analysis, privileged asymmetric critics, and turn-level MDP reformulations with no direct precedent—is presented as an observation drawn from classifying the reviewed papers, not from any self-referential equation, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain. The three contributed resources (machine-readable inventory, reporting checklist, benchmark protocol with decision tree) are meta-artifacts constructed from the external survey and do not feed back into the central claims. No derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction; the work is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central synthesis rests on the assumption that the curated set of 47 methods is representative and that the proposed taxonomy dimensions are the most salient for distinguishing reasoning versus agentic credit assignment.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The 47 core and adjacent methods published 2024-early 2026 form a sufficient basis for identifying systematic gaps and new directions in credit assignment.
The paper's synthesis and resource contributions depend on this selection being comprehensive.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5606 in / 1186 out tokens · 72147 ms · 2026-05-10T17:04:27.651521+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

Learning CLI Agents with Structured Action Credit under Selective Observation
cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

CLI agents trained with RL benefit from selective observation via σ-Reveal and structured credit assignment via A³ that leverages AST action sub-chains and trajectory margins.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 10 internal anchors

[1]

Scar: Shapley credit assignment for more efficient rlhf.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.20417,

Meng Cao, Shuyuan Zhang, Xiao-Wen Chang, and Doina Precup. Scar: Shapley credit assignment for more efficient rlhf.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.20417,

work page arXiv
[2]

Exact Is Easier: Credit Assignment for Cooperative LLM Agents

Yanjun Chen, Yirong Sun, Hanlin Wang, Xinming Zhang, Xiaoyu Shen, Wenjie Li, and Wei Zhang. Contextual counterfactual credit assignment for multi-agent reinforcement learning in llm collab- oration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.06859,

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[3]

DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning

DeepSeek-AI. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[4]

From novice to expert: Llm agent policy optimization via step-wise reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03817, 2024

Zhirui Deng, Zhicheng Dou, Yutao Zhu, Ji-Rong Wen, Ruibin Xiong, Mang Wang, and Weipeng Chen. From novice to expert: Llm agent policy optimization via step-wise reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03817,

work page arXiv
[5]

Self-guided process reward optimization with masked step advantage for process reinforcement learning

Wu Fei, Hao Kong, Shuxian Liang, Yang Lin, et al. Self-guided process reward optimization with re- defined step-wise advantage for process reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01551,

work page arXiv
[6]

Group-in-Group Policy Optimization for LLM Agent Training

Lang Feng, Zhenghai Xue, Tingcong Liu, and Bo An. Group-in-group policy optimization for llm agent training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.10978,

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[7]

Lang Feng, Longtao Zheng, Shuo He, Fuxiang Zhang, and Bo An. Dr. mas: Stable reinforcement learning for multi-agent llm systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08847,

work page arXiv
[8]

Segment policy optimization: Ef- fective segment-level credit assignment in rl for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23564, 2025

Yiran Guo, Lijie Xu, Jie Liu, Dan Ye, and Shuang Qiu. Segment policy optimization: Effective segment-level credit assignment in rl for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23564,

work page arXiv
[9]

Multi-agent deep research: Training multi-agent systems with m-grpo.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.13288, 2025

Haoyang Hong, Jiajun Yin, Yuan Wang, Jingnan Liu, et al. Multi-agent deep research: Training multi-agent systems with m-grpo.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.13288,

work page arXiv
[10]

Sketchvl: Policy optimiza- tion via fine-grained credit assignment for chart understanding and more.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.05688,

Muye Huang, Lingling Zhang, Yifei Li, Yaqiang Wu, and Jun Liu. Sketchvl: Policy optimiza- tion via fine-grained credit assignment for chart understanding and more.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.05688,

work page arXiv
[11]

SCRIBE: Structured Mid-Level Supervision for Tool-Using Language Models

Yuxuan Jiang and Francis Ferraro. Scribe: Structured mid-level supervision for tool-using language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03555,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[12]

Stabilizing off-policy training for long-horizon llm agent via turn-level importance sampling and clipping-triggered normalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.20718, 2025a

Chenliang Li, Adel Elmahdy, Alex Boyd, et al. Stabilizing off-policy training for long-horizon llm agent via turn-level importance sampling and clipping-triggered normalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.20718, 2025a. Ed Li, Junyu Ren, and Cat Yan. Scaling multiagent systems with process rewards.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.23228, 2026a. Jiahui Li, Lin Li, Ta...

work page arXiv
[13]

Who deserves the reward? sharp: Shapley credit-based optimization for multi-agent system.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08335, 2026b

Yanming Li, Xuelin Zhang, WenJie Lu, Ziye Tang, Maodong Wu, Haotian Luo, Tongtong Wu, Zijie Peng, Hongze Mi, Yibo Feng, Naiqiang Tan, Chao Huang, Hong Chen, and Li Shen. Who deserves the reward? sharp: Shapley credit-based optimization for multi-agent system.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08335, 2026b. Yanshi Li, Shaopan Xiong, Gengru Chen, Xiaoyang Li, et al....

work page arXiv
[14]

Pilotrl: Training language model agents via global planning-guided progressive reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.00344, 2025

Keer Lu, Chong Chen, Xili Wang, Bin Cui, Yunhuai Liu, and Wentao Zhang. Pilotrl: Training lan- guage model agents via global planning-guided progressive reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.00344,

work page arXiv
[15]

Improve Mathematical Reasoning in Language Models by Automated Process Supervision

LiangchenLuo, YinxiaoXu, AnirudhSahoo, CanwenLu, KaiHsu, HritikLi, RahulPatel, andTung- Wen Wu. Improve mathematical reasoning in language models by automated process supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06592,

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[16]

Agent lightning: Train any ai agents with reinforcement learning,

Xufang Luo, Yuge Zhang, Zhiyuan He, Zilong Wang, Siyun Zhao, Dongsheng Li, Luna K. Qiu, and Yuqing Yang. Agent lightning: Train any ai agents with reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.03680,

work page arXiv
[17]

KartikNagpal, DayiDong, Jean-BaptisteBouvier, andNegarMehr

Microsoft Research. KartikNagpal, DayiDong, Jean-BaptisteBouvier, andNegarMehr. Leveraginglargelanguagemod- els for effective and explainable multi-agent credit assignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.16863,

work page arXiv
[18]

A survey of temporal credit assignment in deep reinforcement learning, 2024

Eduardo Pignatelli, Johan Ferret, Matthieu Geist, Thomas Mesnard, Hado van Hasselt, and Olivier Pietquin. A survey of temporal credit assignment in deep reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.01072,

work page arXiv
[19]

Fromr to Q∗: Your language model is secretly a Q-function,

Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Stefano Ermon, Christopher D. Manning, and Chelsea Finn. Fromrtoq ∗: Your language model is secretly a q-function.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12358,

work page arXiv
[20]

Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms

John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[21]

Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Li, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, Y. K. Li, Y. Wu, and Daya Guo. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[22]

CARL: Criticality-Aware Agentic Reinforcement Learning

Leyang Shen, Yang Zhang, Chun Kai Ling, Xiaoyan Zhao, and Tat-Seng Chua. Carl: Focusing agen- tic reinforcement learning on critical actions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.04949,

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[23]

Enhancing agentic rl with progressive reward shaping and value-based sampling policy optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.07478,

Jianghao Su, Xia Zeng, Luhui Liu, Chao Luo, Ye Chen, and Zhuoran Zhuang. Enhancing agentic rl with progressive reward shaping and value-based sampling policy optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.07478,

work page arXiv
[24]

Hindsight credit assignment for long-horizon llm agents, 2026

Hui-Ze Tan, Xiao-Wen Yang, Hao Chen, Jie-Jing Shao, Yi Wen, Yuteng Shen, Weihong Luo, Xiku Du, Lan-Zhe Guo, and Yu-Feng Li. Hindsight credit assignment for long-horizon llm agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.08754,

work page arXiv
[25]

Process-supervised reinforcement learning for interactive multimodal tool-use agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.14480,

Weiting Tan, Xinghua Qu, Ming Tu, et al. Process-supervised reinforcement learning for interactive multimodal tool-use agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.14480,

work page arXiv
[26]

Exploiting tree structure for credit assignment in rl training of llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.18314,

Hieu Tran, Zonghai Yao, and Hong Yu. Exploiting tree structure for credit assignment in rl training of llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.18314,

work page arXiv
[27]

InFirst Conference on Language Modeling

38 Guoqing Wang, Sunhao Dai, Guangze Ye, Zeyu Gan, et al. Information gain-based policy op- timization: A simple and effective approach for multi-turn search agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.14967, 2025a. Hanlin Wang, Chak Tou Leong, Jiashuo Wang, Jian Wang, and Wenjie Li. Spa-rl: Reinforcing llm agents via stepwise progress attribution.arXiv preprint arX...

work page arXiv
[28]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.03646 , year=

Haozhe Wang, Qixin Xu, Che Liu, Junhong Wu, Fangzhen Lin, and Wenhu Chen. Emergent hierarchical reasoning in llms through reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.03646, 2025c. Peiyi Wang, Lei Li, Zhihong Shao, R. X. Xu, Damai Dai, Yifei Li, Deli Chen, Y. Wu, and Zhifang Sui. Math-shepherd: Verify and reinforce llms step-by-step without human anno...

work page arXiv
[29]

RAGEN: Understanding Self-Evolution in LLM Agents via Multi-Turn Reinforcement Learning

Zihan Wang, Kangrui Wang, Qineng Wang, Pingyue Zhang, Linjie Li, Zhengyuan Yang, et al. Ragen: Understanding self-evolution in llm agents via multi-turn reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20073, 2025d. Quan Wei, Siliang Zeng, Chenliang Li, William Brown, et al. Reinforcing multi-turn reasoning in llm agents via turn-level reward design.arXiv...

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[30]

Reinforcing language agents via policy optimization with action decomposition, 2024

Muning Wen, Ziyu Wan, Weinan Zhang, Jun Wang, and Ying Wen. Reinforcing language agents via policy optimization with action decomposition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15821,

work page arXiv
[31]

Agentprm: Process reward models for llm agents via step-wise promise and progress.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.08325,

Zhiheng Xi, Chenyang Liao, Guanyu Li, Yajie Yang, et al. Agentprm: Process reward models for llm agents via step-wise promise and progress.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.08325,

work page arXiv
[32]

Capo: Towards enhancing llm reasoning through generative credit assignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.02298, 2025

Guofu Xie, Yunsheng Shi, Hongtao Tian, Ting Yao, and Xiao Zhang. Capo: Towards enhancing llm reasoning through generative credit assignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.02298,

work page arXiv
[33]

Matthew Y. R. Yang, Hao Bai, Ian Wu, Gene Yang, Amrith Setlur, and Aviral Kumar. Int: Self-proposed interventions enable credit assignment in llm reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.14209,

work page arXiv
[34]

PRL: Process Reward Learning Improves LLMs’ Reasoning Ability and Broadens the Reasoning Boundary.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.10201, 2026

Jiarui Yao, Ruida Wang, and Tong Zhang. Prl: Process reward learning improves llms’ reasoning ability and broadens the reasoning boundary.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.10201,

work page arXiv
[35]

Pinpointing crucial steps: Attribution-based credit assignment for verifiable reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.08899,

Junxi Yin, Haisen Luo, Zhenyu Li, Yihua Liu, Dan Liu, Zequn Li, and Xiaohang Xu. Pinpointing crucial steps: Attribution-based credit assignment for verifiable reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.08899,

work page arXiv
[36]

The Landscape of Agentic Reinforcement Learning for LLMs: A Survey

Guibin Zhang, Luyang Zheng, Zhiwei Zhang, Guang Yu, Zongxin Wen, and Kun Li. The landscape of agentic reinforcement learning for llms: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.02547, 2025a. Kaiyan Zhang, Yuxin Zuo, Bingxiang He, Youbang Sun, et al. A survey of reinforcement learning for large reasoning models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.08827, 2025b. Yaocheng Zha...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[37]

Directly evaluated

40 Table 5: Comprehensive comparison of credit assignment methods for LLM RL.Setting: R = Reasoning RL, A = Agentic RL, M = Multi-Agent.Type:C= Core CA method (primary contribution is a novel CA mechanism);E= CA-adjacent enabler (CA is one component among several).Year: arXiv submission year;Venue: publication venue if accepted (may differ from arXiv year...

2025