Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 17 references

TurnSight claims that a student's own tool execution outcomes, seen in hindsight through a frozen reference model, supply reliable turn-level credit for multi-turn tool use, so RL advantages can be rescaled without reference trajectories.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

TurnSight uses a frozen reference model plus future tool outputs to score each reasoning turn, then uses those scores to fine-tune an RL agent's credit assignment, beating existing methods on three benchmarks.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid and useful training recipe, but the core hindsight signal deserves a diagnostic before the claims fully land. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.04007 v1 pith:EWIAYAXJ submitted 2026-08-04 cs.CL cs.AI

TurnSight: Turn-Level Hindsight Self-Distillation for Tool-Integrated Reasoning

Changle Qu , Sunhao Dai , Hengyi Cai , Yuqi Zhou , Xinran Chen , Simon , Jun Xu This is my paper
classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords tool-integrated reasoningcredit assignmenthindsight self-distillationreinforcement learning with verifiable rewardsmulti-turn tool useLLM agentson-policy supervisiontool execution feedback
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

TurnSight claims that the most reliable credit signal for multi-turn tool use is the agent's own tool execution outcomes viewed in hindsight, rather than ground-truth answers or reference trajectories. It builds several hindsight teachers from a frozen reference model by appending future tool results to the student's context, converts their token-level confidence gaps into one assessment per tool-interaction turn, and keeps only the direction on which most lookahead horizons agree. That selected turn-level signal is normalized across sibling rollouts and used to rescale the existing reinforcement-learning advantage without ever flipping its sign. Training remains fully on-policy: no imitation objective, no external reference path, and no change to the underlying GRPO objective. The paper reports new state-of-the-art results on the 8B model, with the previous best method improved by 7.7% in overall average performance across the in-domain FTRL and out-of-domain BFCL and ToolHop benchmarks.

Core claim

TurnSight's central claim is that the most state-aligned supervision for a multi-turn tool-use policy is generated by the policy's own trajectory: appended future tool executions, seen by a frozen reference model, create a hindsight view of each turn. The method computes, for every sampled token, the log-probability gap between this hindsight-conditioned reference and the student, averages these gaps within each tool-interaction turn, and asks three lookahead horizons (current result, current plus next, current plus next two) to vote on whether the turn was helpful. Only the strongest teacher agreeing with the majority direction is kept. The selected turn score is z-normalized across the six

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the execution-conditioned hindsight gap. For a token in turn k, the teacher context appends the hindsight block H_i,k^(d), containing the student's own tool calls and tool responses for the next d turns; the frozen reference policy scores the realized token under this privileged context, and subtracting the student's own log-probability gives delta_t. Turn-level aggregation averages these gaps so the whole tool call, not individual tokens, gets one credit score. Multi-lookahead teacher selection across depths 1, 2, and 3 uses majority voting on the sign of the turn gap to filter out isolated teacher views and picks the strongest agreeing one. Group normalization

Load-bearing premise

The entire method depends on a frozen base model's log-probability gap, computed on contexts that append future tool results the model was never trained on, having a sign that actually tracks whether a turn helped; if that calibration fails, the weighting scheme reinforces mistakes instead of correcting them.

What would settle it

Train TurnSight with the hindsight sign inverted—replace sign(A_base) * delta_hat by its negative inside the tanh while keeping all magnitudes—and check whether performance collapses; if it does not, the directional signal is not what drives the gains. A complementary check is to label each FTRL tool call as useful or harmful from whether its subtask is eventually solved, and test whether the aggregated turn gap agrees with those labels far above chance.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Any GRPO-style tool-use RL run can be upgraded with turn-level hindsight by adding a frozen reference branch and three lookahead contexts; no reward redesign, imitation objective, or trajectory matching is required.
  • Execution outcomes replace ground-truth answers as the privileged signal, and adding the answer actually hurts, so future methods should treat trajectory-level information in reference contexts with caution.
  • Multi-horizon directional agreement generalizes better than any fixed horizon or naive teacher fusion, so supervision should be selected, not aggregated, when horizons disagree.
  • Policies trained this way transfer to unseen benchmarks, implying the credit signal is not overfit to the FTRL tool environment.
  • Full-trajectory supervision beats first-half or second-half supervision, meaning early turns carry more credit but later turns still need independent signal.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same machinery should transfer to any long-horizon agentic loop with discrete turns and deterministic execution feedback, such as code interpreters, web navigation, or database queries, because the hindsight signal is defined by execution outcomes rather than tool schemas.
  • Beyond the paper: the directional claim is testable directly by comparing turn-gap signs against per-turn usefulness labels; if agreement is near chance on successful trajectories, the mechanism would be better interpreted as a magnitude-only regularizer.
  • Beyond the paper: the finding that adding ground-truth answers hurts suggests answer-conditioned self-distillation methods may be paying a hidden state-alignment cost, a comparison that could be run in non-tool reasoning tasks as well.
  • Beyond the paper: because the weight never flips the advantage sign, TurnSight is conservative by construction; a bolder variant allowing flips on strongly agreed hindsight could reach higher performance but would place more weight on the calibration assumption.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. TurnSight proposes a turn-level hindsight self-distillation method for tool-integrated reasoning (TIR). The method constructs privileged contexts by appending future tool calls and observations from the student's own rollout to the student's original context, then uses a frozen reference policy to compute token-level log-probability gaps. These gaps are aggregated per turn, selected across three lookahead depths by majority-vote direction agreement, group-normalized across sibling rollouts, and used to construct bounded, sign-aware weights that modulate the base RL advantage without changing its sign. The authors evaluate on FTRL (in-domain), BFCL, and ToolHop (out-of-domain) with Qwen3-4B and Qwen3-8B, reporting consistent improvements over trajectory-level RL and existing self-distillation baselines, with ablations supporting each design component.

Significance. If the reported gains are robust, TurnSight is a useful contribution to credit assignment in multi-turn tool-use RL: it provides denser, turn-level supervision without requiring ground-truth tool trajectories, and it offers a concrete way to combine on-policy RL with execution-conditioned hindsight. The paper is clearly written, the method is well specified, the ablation study covers the main components, and the code is promised. The main significance is, however, conditional on an untested calibration assumption: the frozen reference policy's log-probability gaps in out-of-distribution future-augmented contexts must be valid proxies for turn quality. The experimental claims are also weakened by the absence of multiple seeds or statistical uncertainty estimates, and by hyperparameter selection performed on the in-domain evaluation benchmark.

major comments (3)
  1. [§Execution-Conditioned Hindsight Construction and §Bounded Sign-Aware Weighting] The core mechanism depends on the assumption that the sign of the aggregated hindsight gap δ̄* tracks whether a turn was actually useful. The reference policy π_ref is a frozen base model that was never trained to condition on future tool calls and observations appended in H^(d); the context c+ is therefore out-of-distribution, and the paper provides no evidence that positive/negative log-probability gaps are calibrated indicators of turn quality. The statement 'A positive gap indicates that observing the execution consequences increases the reference branch's confidence' defines the sign but does not establish that confidence is justified. If the sign is biased by formatting artifacts or by being conditioned on future context in an uncalibrated way, the weight w_{i,t} = 1 + ε_w tanh(sign(A^base_{i,t}) δ̂_{i,k}) will systematically amplify bad turns and attenuate good ones. Table 2's abl
  2. [§Experimental Setups and §Hyper-parameter Analysis] The key hyperparameters λ and ε_w are set to 0.5 based on sensitivity analysis performed on FTRL, which is the same in-domain benchmark used to report the main results (Figure 6). This creates a risk of selection on the evaluation set, especially because the FTRL test categories contain only 50 queries each and no validation split is described. The out-of-domain claims on BFCL and ToolHop are made with hyperparameters chosen on the in-domain test set. Please provide either a separate FTRL validation split for hyperparameter selection, or report the OOD performance for the swept values of λ and ε_w. Additionally, Table 1 reports single runs without multiple seeds, bootstrap confidence intervals, or significance tests; several reported differences are only a few points on 50-instance subsets and may be within noise. Please add seed variance or at least bootstrap confidence intervals to sup
  3. [§Multi-Lookahead Teacher Selection and Figure 4] The direction-consistent teacher selection aggregates only three fixed lookahead depths {1,2,3}. Figure 4 shows that LA1 alone is nearly as strong as the full method (44.26 vs 46.92 average), and the gain of the multi-teacher selection over its strongest fixed teacher is modest. The paper attributes this to cross-horizon agreement, but it does not analyze how often the three teachers disagree, what the majority vote error rate is, or whether the selected depth distribution correlates with turn position or task type. Without this analysis, it is unclear whether the mechanism is selecting 'reliable supervision' or simply averaging in a way that happens to work. Please report agreement rates and the selected-depth distribution, and compare against a random-depth baseline or a learned selection rule to strengthen the causal interpretation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§Execution-Conditioned Privileged Context] The definition of H^(d) includes (C_i,j, o_i,j) for j = k,...,min(k+d-1,K_i), but for the current turn k the tool call C_i,k and its result o_i,k are already causally available after the turn; clarify whether the current turn's own tool result is included in the privileged context for d=1, and how the terminal turn with C_K=∅ is handled in normalization and weighting.
  2. [Figure 6] The axis labels and legend in Figure 6 are unclear: the text refers to Solve-P and Solve-R but the plotted curves are not clearly associated with the left/right axes. Please redraw with explicit legend entries and axis titles.
  3. [§Implementation Details / Table 4] Table 4 lists 'Validation batch size 256' and 'Evaluation interval 5 iterations', but no validation set is described in the experimental setup. Please state what is evaluated at these intervals and whether any early stopping or checkpoint selection was performed, since this affects the interpretation of the reported numbers.
  4. [References] A closely related work, TurnOPD (Zhou et al. 2026b), is cited in the reference list but not discussed or compared in the related work or experiments. Since TurnOPD also addresses turn-aware on-policy distillation for long-horizon agents, please clarify the technical difference and, if possible, include it in the comparison or explain why it is excluded.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the central hindsight-RL derivation is self-contained, with only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

specific steps
  1. other [Experiments / Implementation Details]
    "Since RLSD and TurnSight are agnostic to the underlying RL algorithm and can be combined with different policy-optimization methods, we use MatchTIR as the RL backbone for both."

    TurnSight's base advantage A^{base}_{i,t} is supplied by MatchTIR, a prior method by overlapping authors (Qu et al., 2026), so the reported comparison against MatchTIR is partly a self-comparison against TurnSight's own backbone. This is a minor self-citation. It is not load-bearing for the central derivation: the hindsight weight w_{i,t} is constructed from frozen-reference log-probability gaps on execution-augmented contexts and tool execution outcomes, independent of MatchTIR's matching logic, and no equation in the paper forces the reported gains from this citation.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. The hindsight signal is the token-level gap δ_t = log π_ref(y_t | c^+) - log π_θ(y_t | c), computed with a frozen reference policy on execution-conditioned privileged contexts; it is aggregated over turns, selected across lookahead depths by majority voting, normalized across sibling rollouts, and then used to build a bounded weight w_{i,t} = 1 + ε_w tanh(sign(A^{base}_{i,t}) δ̂_{i,k}). None of these quantities are fitted to the evaluation benchmarks, and the RL advantage itself comes from GRPO-style trajectory rewards plus MatchTIR's turn-level matching. The method does not define its target metric in terms of its inputs, and no equation reduces the reported performance to the hindsight construction by definition. The only self-referential elements are (i) the use of the authors' own MatchTIR as the RL backbone, which is a minor non-load-bearing self-citation, and (ii) hyperparameter selection of λ and ε_w on the FTRL evaluation benchmark, which is an evaluation-protocol caveat rather than a circular derivation. The skeptical concern about sign miscalibration of the frozen reference policy under future-augmented contexts is a validity/calibration risk, not a circularity of the derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim is empirical, so the ledger is dominated by modeling choices and tuned hyper-parameters. The two consequential free parameters, lambda and epsilon_w, are selected on the in-domain benchmark. The load-bearing assumptions are that a frozen base model yields calibrated probabilities under future-augmented contexts, and that majority voting over three heuristically chosen depths yields a reliable sign. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda (mixing coefficient) = 0.5
    Controls the blend of base and hindsight-modulated advantage; selected based on the unimodal trend on the FTRL evaluation set (Figure 6).
  • epsilon_w (modulation bound) = 0.5
    Bounded weight range for hindsight modulation; selected on the FTRL evaluation set (Figure 6).
  • Lookahead depths D_H = {1, 2, 3}
    The set of lookahead horizons is hand-chosen; no sensitivity study across other sets is provided.
  • Group normalization epsilon = not specified
    Small constant added to the standard deviation in the group normalization step; its value, which can affect scale in low-variance groups, is not reported.
axioms (5)
  • standard math GRPO advantage estimation and clipped importance sampling provide a valid policy-gradient update base.
    Used as the RL backbone in the Preliminaries and Objective Function; standard result from Schulman et al. and Shao et al.
  • domain assumption The mean of token-level hindsight gaps over a turn is a meaningful summary of that turn's quality.
    Turn-level aggregation assumes averaging removes token-level noise without losing the causal signal; supported only by an ablation, not by analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper Majority voting over three lookahead depths gives the reliable supervision direction for each turn.
    Direction-consistent teacher selection is a heuristic; no theoretical reason is given that the majority over depths {1,2,3} is correct when individual teachers disagree.
  • ad hoc to paper The frozen reference policy's log-probability gap under future-augmented context is a valid hindsight signal.
    Central modeling assumption: the base model is never trained on future context, yet its probabilities are treated as calibrated evidence of the causal utility of a turn.
  • domain assumption Group normalization across sibling rollouts makes hindsight magnitudes comparable across queries.
    Assumes the per-prompt mean and variance capture scale differences; no theoretical guarantee that normalized signals are comparable across tasks or training stages.
invented entities (1)
  • Execution-conditioned hindsight block H_i,k^(d) no independent evidence
    purpose: Privileged future tool executions appended to the context so the teacher can evaluate the current turn with lookahead.
    An internal data structure introduced per turn; no external falsifiable predictions. Its utility is only evidenced by the benchmark improvements in this paper.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TurnSight: Turn-Level Hindsight Self-Distillation for Tool-Integrated Reasoning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EWIAYAXJ

@misc{pith2026260804007,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TurnSight: Turn-Level Hindsight Self-Distillation for Tool-Integrated Reasoning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EWIAYAXJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04007}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Tool-Integrated Reasoning (TIR) enables LLMs to solve complex tasks through iterative tool interactions. However, existing reinforcement learning methods often rely on trajectory-level supervision, limiting fine-grained credit assignment in long-horizon TIR scenarios. On-policy self-distillation offers denser signals through teacher branches with privileged context, but existing approaches typically derive such context from ground-truth answers or retrieved skills, which may not reflect the states actually visited by the agent. Moreover, token-level supervision fails to capture the turn-level structure of tool interactions. To address this, we propose TurnSight, a turn-level hindsight self-distillation framework that derives supervision directly from execution-conditioned hindsight. It then constructs multiple hindsight views with different lookahead horizons and selects reliable supervision through cross-horizon directional agreement. Finally, the selected hindsight signal is normalized across sibling rollouts and used to adaptively modulate RL advantages while preserving their original optimization direction. Extensive experiments on three benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of TurnSight. Our codes are available at https://github.com/quchangle1/TurnSight.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04007 by Changle Qu, Hengyi Cai, Jun Xu, Simon, Sunhao Dai, Xinran Chen, Yuqi Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of credit assignment strategies for TIR. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The illustration of our proposed turn-level hindsight self-distillation framework TurnSight for TIR. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Effect of hindsight context composition. Darker [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of fixed-lookahead teachers, teacher fusion, and our direction-consistent teacher selection. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sensitivity analysis of performance to hyper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    THOR:Tool-IntegratedHierar- chical Optimization via RL for Mathematical Reasoning

    Chang, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Hu, P.; Du, J.; Ma, J.; Pan, Y.; Zhang, J.;Liu,Q.;andGao,J.2026. THOR:Tool-IntegratedHierar- chical Optimization via RL for Mathematical Reasoning. In The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Rep- resentations. Ding, T.; Xin, J.; and Weinstein, J. P. D. l. C

    work page 2026

  2. [4]

    Kim,J.;Luo,X.;Kim,M.;Lee,S.;Kim,D.;Jeon,J.;Li,D.; andYang,Y.2026

    VerlTool:TowardsHolisticAgenticReinforcementLearning withToolUse.Transactions on Machine Learning Research. Kim,J.;Luo,X.;Kim,M.;Lee,S.;Kim,D.;Jeon,J.;Li,D.; andYang,Y.2026. WhyDoesSelf-Distillation(Sometimes) DegradetheReasoningCapabilityofLLMs?arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.24472. Li, G.; Yang, T.; Fang, J.; Song, M.; Zheng, M.; Guo, H.; Zhang,D.;Wang,J.;and...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  3. [5]

    arXiv:2605.15155

    Self-Distilled Agentic Reinforcement Learning. arXiv:2605.15155. Ma, Y.; Liang, Z.; Chen, B.; Qian, Z.; Dai, H.; Mao, L.; Zhang,X.;Lei,C.;andOu,W.2026. SD-Search:On-Policy Hindsight Self-Distillation for Search-Augmented Reason- ing. arXiv:2605.18299. Patil, S. G.; Mao, H.; Cheng-Jie Ji, C.; Yan, F.; Suresh, V.; Stoica, I.; and E. Gonzalez, J

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  4. [6]

    Shao, Z.; Wang, P.; Zhu, Q.; Xu, R.; Song, J.; Bi, X.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, M.; Li, Y

    Crisp: Compressed reasoning via iterative self-policy distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.05433. Shao, Z.; Wang, P.; Zhu, Q.; Xu, R.; Song, J.; Bi, X.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, M.; Li, Y. K.; Wu, Y.; and Guo, D

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [8]

    Wang, H.; Wang, G.; Xiao, H.; Zhou, Y.; Pan, Y.; Wang, J.; Xu, K.; Wen, Y.; Ruan, X.; Chen, X.; et al

    Otc: Optimaltoolcallsviareinforcementlearning.arXiv e-prints, arXiv–2504. Wang, H.; Wang, G.; Xiao, H.; Zhou, Y.; Pan, Y.; Wang, J.; Xu, K.; Wen, Y.; Ruan, X.; Chen, X.; et al. 2026b. Skill-sd: Skill-conditioned self-distillation for multi-turn llm agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.10674. Wei, Y.; Yu, X.; Weng, Y.; Pan, T.; Li, A.; and Du, L

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [9]

    Xue, Z.; Zheng, L.; Liu, Q.; Li, Y.; Zheng, X.; MA, Z.; and An, B

    Autotir: Autonomous tools integrated reasoning via rein- forcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.21836. Xue, Z.; Zheng, L.; Liu, Q.; Li, Y.; Zheng, X.; MA, Z.; and An, B

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [10]

    InThe Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Represen- tations

    SimpleTIR: End-to-End Reinforcement Learning for Multi-Turn Tool-Integrated Reasoning. InThe Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Represen- tations. Yang,A.;Li,A.;Yang,B.;Zhang,B.;Hui,B.;Zheng,B.;Yu, B.;Gao,C.;Huang,C.;Lv,C.;etal.2025. Qwen3Technical Report. arXiv:2505.09388. Yang, C.; Qin, C.; Si, Q.; Chen, M.; Gu, N.; Yao, D.; Lin, Z.; Wang, ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [11]

    arXiv:2604.03128

    Self-Distilled RLVR. arXiv:2604.03128. Ye, J.; Du, Z.; Yao, X.; Lin, W.; Xu, Y.; Chen, Z.; Wang, Z.; Zhu, S.; Xi, Z.; Yuan, S.; et al

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [12]

    InProceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2995–3021

    ToolHop: A Query- Driven Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Multi-Hop Tool Use. InProceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2995–3021. Ye, J.; Jiang, C.; Du, Z.; Xu, Y.; Yao, X.; Xi, Z.; Fan, X.; Zhang,Q.;Gui,T.;Huang,X.;andChen,J.2026a.Feedback- Driven Tool-Use Improvements in Large Language M...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  10. [13]

    InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025, 9135–9147

    Tool Zero: Training Tool-Augmented LLMs via Pure RL from Scratch. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025, 9135–9147. Zhang,S.;Dong,Y.;Zhang,J.;Kautz,J.;Catanzaro,B.;Tao, A.; Wu, Q.; Yu, Z.; and Liu, G

    work page 2025

  11. [14]

    Zhang, Y.; Lin, X.; and Wu, C

    Nemotron-research- tool-n1:Tool-usinglanguagemodelswithreinforcedreason- ing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.00024. Zhang, Y.; Lin, X.; and Wu, C

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [15]

    arXiv:2605.27140

    StepOPSD: Step- Aware Online Preference Distillation for Agent Reinforce- ment Learning. arXiv:2605.27140. Zhao, S.; Xie, Z.; Liu, M.; Huang, J.; Pang, G.; Chen, F.; and Grover, A

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [16]

    Zhou, Y.; Zhang, L.; Wu, Y.; Wang, M.; Peng, B.; Liu, J.; Fan, X.; and Zhao, Z

    Sod: Step-wise on-policy distillation for small language model agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.07725. Zhou, Y.; Zhang, L.; Wu, Y.; Wang, M.; Peng, B.; Liu, J.; Fan, X.; and Zhao, Z. 2026a. SAGE-OPD: Selective Agent- Guided Intervention for Multi-Turn On-Policy Distillation. arXiv:2606.19659. Zhou, Y.; Zheng, K.; Li, H.; Peng, D.; Xu, C.; and Chen, J. 202...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [17]

    Its tasks re- quire agents to compose dependent tool calls over a tool collection that differs from the FTRL training environment

    contains 995 multi- hop queries and 3,912 locally executable tools. Its tasks re- quire agents to compose dependent tool calls over a tool collection that differs from the FTRL training environment. We therefore use ToolHop to examine whether the learned credit-assignment strategy transfers to new tools and inter- action structures. Performance is measure...

    work page 2025

  15. [2024]

    arXiv:2402.03300

    DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Rea- soning in Open Language Models. arXiv:2402.03300. Shenfeld,I.;Damani,M.;Hübotter,J.;andAgrawal,P.2026. Self-Distillation Enables Continual Learning. InForty-third International Conference on Machine Learning. Sheng, G.; Zhang, C.; Ye, Z.; Wu, X.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, R.; Peng, Y.; Lin, H.; and Wu, C

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  16. [2025]

    Retool: Reinforce- ment learning for strategic tool use in llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.11536. Gou,Z.;Shao,Z.;Gong,Y.;Yang,Y.;Huang,M.;Duan,N.; Chen,W.;etal.2024.Tora:Atool-integratedreasoningagent for mathematical problem solving.In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). Hübotter, J.; Lübeck, F.; Behric, L....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [2026]

    Keep Policy Gradient in Charge: Sibling-Guided Credit Distillation for Long-Horizon Tool-Use Agents

    Keep Policy Gradient in Charge: Sibling-Guided Credit Distil- lation for Long-Horizon Tool-Use Agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.12634. Feng, J.; Huang, S.; Qu, X.; Zhang, G.; Qin, Y.; Zhong, B.; Jiang, C.; Chi, J.; and Zhong, W

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.