Collaborative multi-agent large language models (LLMs) can solve complex reasoning tasks by decomposing roles, but reinforcement learning for such systems is limited by credit assignment: shared terminal rewards obscure individual contributions and can encourage free-riding. We introduce two optimizer-agnostic credit assignment methods for converting joint outcomes into agent-specific learning signals. Counterfactual Credit for Policy Optimization (CCPO) estimates an agent's marginal contribution by comparing the realized joint outcome with a counterfactual outcome where that agent is removed. Self-Evaluated Credit for Policy Optimization (SEPO) uses constrained self- and peer-evaluations as a verifier-anchored credit signal while keeping the external task outcome dominant. Both operate at the reward-construction layer rather than as policy optimizers, producing role-specific rewards or advantages for GRPO, GSPO, or REINFORCE++. We instantiate these credit signals in a sequential Think--Solve setting and evaluate them on mathematical reasoning benchmarks. Results show that explicit credit assignment often improves dual-agent reasoning, especially on MATH500 and several out-of-distribution settings, while gains vary across models and datasets. Our code is available at: https://github.com/bhai114/ccpo.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the reward-construction layer. Shared rewards, CCPO, and SEPO define credit signals that are passed to a separate policy optimizer.
Model
Dataset
Untrained
Shared
CCPO
qwen2.5 1.5b instruct
MATH500
54.00
60.00
61.00
AIME25
-
-
-
AMC23
32.50
20.00
35.00
Gaokao2023
41.04
43.90
41.60
MinervaMath
12.50
13.60
14.70
llama3.1 8b instruct
MATH500
46.20
51.80
53.40
Table 1: Dual-agent reasoning performance under the GRPO optimizer with different credit signals on mathematical benchmarks (Accuracy %).
Model
Dataset
Un- trained
Shared
CCPO
SEPO
qwen2.5 1.5b instruct
MATH500
54.00
57.80
59.20
59.20
AIME25
-
6.670
6.670
6.670
AMC23
32.50
42.50
42.50
35.00
Gaokao2023
41.04
46.23
47.01
46.49
MinervaMath
12.50
16.18
15.44
16.91
olmo3 7b instruct
MATH500
82.60
87.00
84.40
87.00
Table 2: Reward-construction comparison under the fixed GSPO optimizer.
Model
Dataset
Untrained
Shared
CCPO
SEPO
GroupA
MATH500
73.60
87.20
87.00
87.40
AIME25
20.00
33.33
36.67
33.33
AMC23
52.50
72.50
80.00
82.50
Gaokao2023en
55.32
69.09
68.31
69.09
MinervaMath
20.22
27.94
30.15
25.37
Table 3: Performance (%) of heterogeneous LLM collaboration under GSPO with different credit signals. GroupA denotes olmo3-7b-instruct&qwen2.5-1.5b-instruct.
Model
Full collaboration
Agent 1 removed
qwen2.5-1.5b-instruct
61.00
56.40
llama3.1-8b-instruct
53.40
52.00
qwen2.5-7b-instruct
77.60
76.00
Table 4: Ablation of the Think–Solve handoff.
Figure 2: Reward distributions under shared rewards and CCPO credit assignment. The first row shows the Thinker and the second row shows the Solver; CCPO rewards separate contribution patterns more clearly than shared rewards (J: joint-answer score; S: Solver-only score).
Figure 3: Training efficiency and validation accuracy of GRPO with CCPO rewards versus GRPO with shared rewards.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Category
Hyperparameter
Value
Policy Optimization
Learning rate
1×10−6
Batch size
64
Samples per prompt ( n )
4
Clip ratio ( ϵ )
0.2
Gradient clip
1.0
Reward Shaping
Contribution sensitivity ( α )
1.0
Appendix
Table 5: Training and reward-shaping hyperparameters.
Reinforcement learning for multi-step reasoning with large language models (LLMs) typically relies on sparse terminal rewards, which creates a poorly conditioned credit-assignment problem: the final feedback is propagated uniformly across all intermediate decisions. This leads to high gradient variance, unstable training, and many ineffective updates, ultimately limiting sustained model improvement. We propose a counterfactual-comparison framework for credit assignment. For each input, the framework samples multiple reasoning trajectories and treats their differences as implicit approximations to alternative decisions. This yields an implicit process-level advantage estimator that converts sparse terminal rewards into step-sensitive learning signals. Building on this framework, we introduce Implicit Behavior Policy Optimization (IBPO), which substantially improves training stability and the performance ceiling on mathematical and code-reasoning benchmarks. Our results point to a promising direction for unlocking the reasoning potential of LLMs.
Contemporary reinforcement learning with verifiable reward methods post-train language models on multi-step reasoning by assigning a single outcome reward uniformly across all tokens in a trajectory. Such uniform assignment ignores which steps contributed to success or failure. Improving credit assignment can address this limitation by enabling targeted refinement of faulty reasoning steps, rather than updating entire trajectories uniformly. Resets are one such simple mechanism, enabling more precise credit assignment by returning to an intermediate state and resampling counterfactual continuations, so that outcome differences can be attributed to decisions made at that point. We propose two such methods: Random-Reset Policy Optimization (RRPO), where reset states are drawn randomly from reasoning steps, and Self-Reset Policy Optimization (SRPO), where the model self-localizes the erroneous step in an incorrect trajectory and resets there. We analyze these methods within the Conservative Policy Iteration (CPI) framework. Extending CPI with a credit-assignment oracle that targets improvable states yields provable improvements over random resets. Across models and reasoning benchmarks, SRPO consistently outperforms standard GRPO and RRPO by sampling multiple suffix continuations at a self-localized reset and learning from their rewards, using only the model itself with no external supervision.
Ankur Samanta, Akshayaa Magesh, Ayush Jain +7
1Meta AI · 2Columbia University · *Work done at Meta +2
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has improved the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), yet their predictions remain sensitive to task-irrelevant prompt features. We investigate this sensitivity through semifactual prompt interventions that preserve the underlying problem and its answer. Our analysis reveals substantial variation in token-level sensitivity and shows that suppressing high-drift token candidates during decoding improves reasoning accuracy without updating model weights. These findings highlight a limitation of Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), which assigns the same outcome-derived advantage to every response token and may reinforce potential spurious dependence alongside useful reasoning. Motivated by this observation, we introduce Semifactual Credit-Augmented Policy Optimization (SCAPO), a causally inspired variant of GRPO that incorporates semifactual stability into token-level credit assignment. SCAPO measures token probability drift for fixed responses under semifactual interventions and uses normalized stability scores to reduce advantages for relatively unstable tokens during early training, while granting no additional credit for stability alone. On Qwen3-4B-Base and Qwen3-1.7B-Base, SCAPO improves AIME 2024-2026 accuracy over GRPO by 5.63 and 4.17 percentage points, respectively. At both model scales, SCAPO achieves the best results on most evaluated mathematics benchmarks and all evaluated out-of-distribution benchmarks among the compared methods. These results suggest that semifactual stability provides an effective training signal for improving reasoning and generalization through finer-grained credit assignment in RLVR. The code is available at https://github.com/DtYXs/SCAPO.
Junshu Pan, Zhizhang Fu, Shulin Huang +5
Zhejiang University · Westlake University · Shanghai Innovation Institute +1