Abstract
Per-token counterfactual credit estimation asks which token in a language-model rollout caused the final answer to be right or wrong: cut the transcript at a pivot, substitute an alternative token, replay continuations, and compare outcomes. Published methods re-feed the transcript prefix as a fresh prompt, assuming this reproduces the state the model passed through during generation. We measure what that assumption costs on a stock inference engine, with a three-pass design: continuations resumed from the verified decode-time KV state, an identical second exact pass (a replica noise floor), and a re-feed pass. Across six configurations and three models (including a GRPO-trained checkpoint), at low-margin decision tokens, re-feeding changes the credit estimate at rates 14-28 percentage points above the replica floor (7-21pp under a treatment-independent conditioning; problem-clustered t = 2.9-6.4). Most changes are zero-boundary crossings of the quantized estimator rather than polarity reversals, and the perturbation is consistent with mean-zero, so averaged quantities are largely safe; but selection is not: a critical-token set chosen by thresholding ∣A^t∣ under re-feed overlaps the exact-resume selection at Jaccard 0.34-0.90, versus a 0.63-0.96 replica ceiling. A causal confirmation closes the loop: under vLLM's batch-invariant kernels all three passes are identical on every measured channel, with both disagreement rates exactly zero. Replica passes themselves disagree on 9-23% of eligible estimates: single-sample credit measurements at decision tokens are unreliable under any replay. Settings were fixed in advance; exact-pass cache hits in the second campaign are instrumented (100% hit rate, 3,434 pivots); total compute was under 10 USD. We recommend that counterfactual credit studies resume decoder state or use batch-invariant kernels, and report a replica floor.
Explore similar work
Jul 30, 2026cs.AI
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is central to improving long-CoT reasoning in large language models. Critic-free methods such as GRPO convert response-level rewards into advantages and uniformly broadcast them across tokens, overlooking their unequal contributions to the final outcome. On-policy self-distillation (OPSD) instead provides dense distributional supervision by minimizing the forward KL divergence between an unprivileged policy and a privileged self-teacher, implicitly assuming that the resulting likelihood shifts encode reliable answer-aligned information. We test this premise by fixing each sampled trajectory and re-scoring it under two opposing outcome conditions, one asserting correctness and the other incorrectness. Most affected tokens shift in the same direction under both conditions, with few sign reversals and substantial overlap in the induced optimization signals. Large shifts also concentrate on highly substitutable surface-form tokens, whereas tokens carrying problem-specific reasoning content are less sensitive. These findings show that privileged shifts fail to provide reliable answer-aligned directions, while their magnitudes primarily reflect counterfactual sensitivity rather than token-level learning value. Based on these observations, we propose Counterfactual Sensitivity Credit Reallocation (CSCR), a simple extension of GRPO that reduces credit for highly sensitive tokens and renormalizes token-level advantages to preserve both the original credit budget and verifier-determined direction. On long-CoT mathematical reasoning benchmarks, CSCR consistently outperforms GRPO baseline with the same number of policy updates. Targeted ablations further corroborate our diagnosis: privilege-induced directions are unreliable, moderate downweighting is most effective, and stronger modulation destabilizes optimization.
Qiangqiang He, Zhongheng Wu, ZiJian Wang
May 9, 2026cs.LG
A commonly accepted explanation of critic-free RL for LLMs, based on sequence-level rewards, is that it reinforces successful rollouts with a positive advantage while penalizing failed ones. In contrast, we study critic-free RL from a token-level perspective, revealing the token-flipping phenomenon: positive and negative rollouts exhibit remarkably similar proportions of tokens whose probabilities are boosted or suppressed during RL training. To explain this phenomenon, we further show that a token's change in probability is not fully determined by its own advantage; coupled gradient interactions with other tokens also play a non-negligible role. Specifically, these token coupling effects occur primarily between identical tokens that are both predicted with low confidence. Building upon this analysis, we propose the cancellation hypothesis: as a result of coupling, opposing signals cancel out for tokens shared by positive and negative rollouts, while tokens more specific to successful rollouts receive stronger reinforcement, thereby inducing hidden token-level credit assignment from rollout-level rewards. We support this hypothesis with complementary empirical evidence. (1) Compared with training on only positive rollouts, critic-free RL shifts updates from template and formatting tokens toward reasoning tokens; (2) Tokens boosted by critic-free RL consistently demonstrate higher value than suppressed tokens, regardless of whether they originate from positive or negative rollouts. Guided by this view, we implement two batching interventions to encourage or preserve cancellation in critic-free RL training: query-preserved mini-batching and reward-balanced batching. Despite their simplicity, these interventions improve RLVR training across multiple model scales, supporting cancellation as both an explanatory principle and a practical design criterion for critic-free RL training.
Tianhao Cheng, Zeyu Huang, Zihan Qiu +5
May 2, 2026cs.LG
Generative AI disrupts the practice of giving credit to work that came before. Ideally, a generative model would give credit to any work on which its output depends in a significant way. \emph{Counterfactual credit attribution} (CCA) is a technical condition formalizing this goal--a relaxation of differential privacy--recently introduced by Livni, Moran, Nissim, and Pabbaraju [2024] who studied it in the PAC learning setting. We initiate the study of CCA generative models. Specifically, we consider autoregressive models giving credit to a deployment-time dataset (e.g., a RAG database). We uncover barriers to two natural approaches to CCA autoregressive models. First, we show that imposing CCA on the underlying next-token predictor does not guarantee that the model is CCA: CCA does not compose autoregressively (unlike DP). Second, we consider a different approach to building CCA models which we call \emph{retrofitting}. Retrofitting takes a model that does not attribute credit, and adds credit onto it. We prove a lower bound for CCA retrofitting under a weak optimality requirement. Given black-box access to the starting model, retrofitting requires query complexity exponential in the length of the model's outputs.
Aloni Cohen, Chenhao Zhang