TAMTRL: Teacher-Aligned Reward Reshaping for Multi-Turn Reinforcement Learning in Long-Context Compression
Authors: Li Wang, Yandong Wang, Xin Yu, Kui Zhang, Tianhao Peng, Wenjun Wu
Organizations: School of Artificial Intelligence, Beihang University, Beijing, 100191, China · Hangzhou International Innovation Institute, Beihang University, Hangzhou, China · Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Future Blockchain and Privacy Computing, Beihang University, Beijing, China
The rapid progress of large language models (LLMs) has led to remarkable performance gains across a wide range of tasks. However, when handling long documents that exceed the model's context window limit, the entire context cannot be processed in a single pass, making chunk-wise processing necessary. This requires multiple turns to read different chunks and update memory. However, supervision is typically provided only by the final outcome, which makes it difficult to evaluate the quality of memory updates at each turn in the multi-turn training setting. This introduces a temporal credit assignment challenge. Existing approaches, such as LLM-as-a-judge or process reward models, incur substantial computational overhead and suffer from estimation noise. To better address the credit assignment problem in multi-turn memory training, we propose Teacher-Aligned Reward Reshaping for Multi-Turn Reinforcement Learning (TAMTRL). TAMTRL leverages relevant documents as teacher signals by aligning them with each turn of model input and assigns rewards through normalized probabilities in a self-supervised manner. This provides fine-grained learning signals for each memory update and improves long-context processing. Experiments with multiple models of varying scales across seven long-context benchmarks show that TAMTRL consistently outperforms strong baselines, demonstrating its effectiveness. Our code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/TAMTRL-F1F8.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: In multi-turn RLVR, the lack of temporal credit assignment may wrongly penalize turns with good answers or reward turns with poor answers, introducing noisy supervision that complicates training and degrades performance. Existing solutions either incur significant computational overhead or rely on external models.
Figure 2: Framework of the TAMTRL Method. Solving long-context problems through chunk-based processing, utilizing the probability scores from a teacher with local and global views for turn-level credit assignment to enable multi-turn reinforcement learning.
Methods
HotpotQA
RULER-QA
NIAH
2Wikimqa
Musique
Narrativeqa
Qasper
Average
# Qwen3-0.6B
Base [ 57 ]
0.00
0.65
11.65
0.63
0.12
0.00
0.50
1.94
SFT [ 23 ]
34.38
44.80
97.60
37.75
18.13
4.00
10.37
35.29
STaR [ 55 ]
12.11
22.15
82.70
24.50
5.12
1.88
11.00
22.78
Vanilla-KD [ 56 ]
27.73
38.15
89.40
35.75
18.75
2.62
11.25
31.95
MemAgent [ 9 ]
38.87
47.05
95.04
40.13
23.62
4.13
12.00
37.26
Table 1: Performance (%) of Qwen3-0.6B and Qwen3-1.7B models across seven representative benchmarks under various methods. The bold and underline indicate the best and second-best results, respectively.
Figure 3: Training dynamics comparison of Qwen3-0.6B model.
Figure 4: Training dynamics comparison of Qwen3-1.7B model.
Methods
HotpotQA
RULER-QA
NIAH
2Wikimqa
Musique
Narrativeqa
Qasper
Average
# Qwen3-0.6B
TAMTRL (ours)
42.09
52.25
95.04
43.00
24.75
4.37
13.50
39.29
w/o l-norm
39.26
49.70
95.15
39.50
22.25
4.00
13.12
37.57
w/o mm-norm
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
# Qwen3-1.7B
TAMTRL (ours)
47.66
55.45
98.25
53.25
29.00
5.50
13.38
43.21
Table 2: Ablation study on the performance (%) of Qwen3 model across seven representative benchmarks under various methods. The bold and underline indicate the best and second-best results, respectively.
Methods
HotpotQA
RULER-QA
NIAH
2Wikimqa
Musique
Narrativeqa
Qasper
Average
# Qwen3-0.6B
TAMTRL (ours)
42.09
52.25
95.04
43.00
24.75
4.37
13.50
39.29
global-reward
42.77
51.50
89.75
41.62
22.88
3.62
14.12
38.04
plus-reward
16.02
19.30
65.00
21.25
2.50
1.37
8.75
19.17
# Qwen3-1.7B
TAMTRL (ours)
47.66
55.45
98.25
53.25
29.00
5.50
13.38
43.21
Table 3: Exploration of reward design for Qwen3 model across seven representative benchmarks. The bold and underline indicate the best and second-best results, respectively.
Figure 5: Analysis of the impact of different document quantities on the performance of TAMTRL on the HotpotQA dataset. (Left) Test results with varying training document quantities at a fixed test document quantity of 100; (Right) Test results with varying test document quantities at a fixed training document quantity of 100.
Figure 6: Analysis of the impact of different chunk sizes on the performance of TAMTRL on the HotpotQA dataset. (Left) Test results with varying training chunk sizes at a fixed test chunk size of 5000; (Right) Test results with varying test chunk sizes at a fixed training chunk size of 5000.
Figure 7: Average performance variation of the model with TAMTRL under different training data ratios on seven datasets.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
# Train / Test
HotpotQA-train
25600 / -
SFT-train
65057 / -
STaR-train-0.6B
5264 / -
STaR-train-1.7B
60773 / -
Vanilla-KD-train
80040 / -
HotpotQA-test
- / 128
Appendix
Table A1: Statistics of the training and test datasets used by all methods.
Method
Data Processing
Training
Total
SFT
54.12
3.7
58.82
STaR
23.33
0.32
23.65
Vanilla-KD
37.66
21.59
59.25
MemAgent
0
37.75
37.75
LLM-judge
0
48.41
48.41
PRM
41.06
40.71
81.77
Appendix
Table A2: Estimated computational time (hours) for various methods with Qwen3-0.6B.
Figure A1: Design of Prompt for MemAgent.
Figure A2: Design of Prompt for LLM-judge.
Figure A3: TAMTRL-0.6B model output example 1 on the hotpotQA dataset.
Figure A4: TAMTRL-1.7B model output example 1 on the hotpotQA dataset.