Reducing Credit Assignment Variance via Counterfactual Reasoning Paths

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.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has become the standard recipe for improving LLM reasoning, but the dominant algorithm GRPO assigns a single trajectory-level advantage to every token, diluting the signal at pivotal reasoning steps and injecting noise at uninformative ones. Critic-free alternatives derived from on-policy distillation supply per-token signals through oracle-conditioned likelihood ratios, yet apply each signal in isolation from the trajectory-level evidence accumulated up to that position. We propose Oracle-Prompted Policy Optimization (OPPO), which rests on a single observation: the oracle signal used by prior distillation-style methods for local discrimination is also the natural Bayesian update of the model's belief about eventual success. Accumulating the signal along a trajectory yields, in closed form and at the cost of one extra forward pass, a running estimate of the success probability at every position, together with a token-level advantage that requires no learned value network and no additional rollouts. A first-order analysis factorizes the advantage into the per-token discrimination signal used by distillation methods modulated by a state weight that concentrates credit on genuinely pivotal tokens, with a directional variance-reduction guarantee. The framework admits two estimators differing only in which model scores the evidence: a \textit{self-oracle} that reuses the student and recovers the on-policy distillation reward as a strict special case, and a \textit{teacher-oracle} that delegates scoring to a stronger frozen model. On two base LLMs across seven mathematics, science, and code reasoning benchmarks, OPPO improves over GRPO, DAPO, and SDPO by up to $+6.0$ points on AMC'23 and $+5.2$ points on AIME'24, with gains that widen monotonically with response length.

Reinforcement learning has become the standard for improving reasoning in large language models, yet evidence increasingly suggests that RL does not teach new strategies; it redistributes probability mass over solutions the base model already contains. In this work, we ask: if RL merely steers the model toward paths it already knows, is the RL optimization loop itself necessary? Through token-level analysis across multiple model families and RL algorithms, we find that RL's beneficial footprint is a sparse, predictable correction concentrated at high-entropy decision points where the model is uncertain which branch to take. Only 1--3% of token positions are affected, the promoted token always lies within the base model's top-5 alternatives, and targeted corrections at those few positions causally recover a large fraction of RL's accuracy gain, while random corrections fail. The base model's own entropy identifies these positions without any RL-trained model, and the entire correction is low-dimensional, representable in a tiny fraction of model parameters. These findings reframe reasoning improvement as sparse policy selection, not capability acquisition. We translate this insight into ReasonMaxxer, a minimal RL-free method that applies contrastive loss only at entropy-gated decision points, using a few hundred base-model rollouts and no online generation. Across three model families, six scales, and six math reasoning benchmarks, ReasonMaxxer matches or exceeds full RL performance while requiring only tens of problems and minutes of single-GPU training, a reduction in training cost of roughly three orders of magnitude.