Agentic reinforcement learning (RL) equips large language models (LLMs) with tool-use capabilities that substantially improve reasoning on complex tasks. However, integrating external tools often destabilizes training: over-reliance on tools can induce input distribution shift, while overly conservative tool use limits effective exploration. To address this issue, we propose a unified framework TAO-RL that couples tool-aware trajectory filtering with entropy-guided exploration for efficient policy optimization. Specifically, at the data level, TAO-RL filters rollout trajectories along two criteria: discarding those where all tool invocations fail to execute, and removing those where all rollouts are either correct or incorrect, as both cases yield degenerate advantage estimates that contribute no discriminative learning signal. This joint filtering retains data that are both tool-capable and informative, establishing a high-quality training distribution. At the algorithmic level, we introduce a tool-aware entropy-guided bonus that reshapes the advantage function at post-tool-call tokens, encouraging the policy to explore more diverse reasoning paths at critical decision points. These two components are mutually reinforcing: trajectory filtering establishes a clean and informative training foundation, while entropy-guided exploration drives stronger reasoning behaviors at critical tool-interaction junctures. Extensive experiments on 7 challenging reasoning benchmarks across 3 model scales demonstrate the superiority of TAO-RL over existing methods.
Agentic reinforcement learning can induce tool abuse, where models overuse external tools even for queries solvable by internal reasoning. Existing approaches mitigate this issue with uniform tool-use penalties or hard limits, which reduce tool frequency but may also suppress useful tool-assisted exploration. We propose EAPO, an Efficient Agentic Policy Optimization framework that learns selective tool use. EAPO introduces tool-free trajectories into each rollout group, applies difficulty-aware reward shaping to penalize redundant tool calls mainly on easier queries, and uses confidence-aware token reweighting to improve policy learning. Across nine mathematical and knowledge-intensive reasoning benchmarks, EAPO consistently improves the accuracy efficiency trade-off on Qwen2.5-3B, Qwen2.5-7B, and Llama3.1-8B. Compared with GRPO, EAPO improves average performance by 10.45%, 7.27%, and 9.69%, while reducing average tool calls by 18.33%, 18.33%, and 24.59%, respectively. These results show that agents can learn when not to use tools without compromising tool-integrated reasoning.
Agentic Reinforcement Learning (ARL) trains large language models to interleave reasoning with external tool execution to solve complex tasks. Most existing ARL methods train a single set of parameters to support both reasoning and tool-use behaviors, implicitly assuming that joint training leads to improved overall agent performance. Despite its widespread adoption, this assumption has rarely been examined empirically. In this paper, we systematically examine this assumption by introducing Capability Effect Attribution (CEA), which provides quantitative evidence of interference between reasoning and tool-use behaviors. Through an in-depth analysis, we show that these two capabilities often induce misaligned gradient directions, leading to training interference that undermines the effectiveness of joint optimization and challenges the prevailing ARL paradigm. To address this issue, we propose Disentangled Action--Reasoning Tuning (DART), a simple and efficient framework that explicitly decouples parameter updates for reasoning and tool use via separate low-rank adaptation modules. With this simple change alone, DART outperforms all joint-optimization baselines and approaches the 2-Agent upper bound across thirteen benchmarks on retrieval-augmented QA and NL2SQL, further supporting our finding of capability interference under shared optimization.
Recent advances in agentic Reinforcement Learning (RL) have substantially improved the multi-turn tool-use capabilities of large language model agents. However, most existing methods assign credit over coarse heuristic units, such as tool-call boundaries or fixed workflows, making it difficult to identify which intermediate decisions influence downstream outcomes. In this work, we study agentic RL from two perspectives: \textit{where to branch and how to assign credit after branching}. Our pilot analysis shows that influential decision points are broadly distributed throughout the generated sequence rather than concentrated at tool calls, while token entropy alone does not reliably reflect their impact on final outcomes. Motivated by these observations, we propose \textbf{Agentic Procedural Policy Optimization (APPO)}, which shifts branching and credit assignment from coarse interaction units to fine-grained decision points in the sequence. APPO selects branching locations using a Branching Score that combines token uncertainty with policy-induced likelihood gains of subsequent continuations, enabling more targeted exploration while filtering out spurious high-entropy positions. It further introduces procedure-level advantage scaling to better distribute credit across branched rollouts. Experiments on 13 benchmarks show that APPO consistently improves strong agentic RL baselines by nearly 4 points, while keeping efficient tool-calls and maintaining behavior interpretability.