Fishing Out Free Riders: Shapley-Based Reward Attribution for Parallel Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning

Reinforcement learning with verifiers (RLVR) has become a central paradigm for improving LLM reasoning, yet popular group-based optimization algorithms like GRPO often suffer from exploration collapse, where the models prematurely converge on a narrow set of high-scoring patterns, lacking the ability to explore new solutions. Recent efforts attempt to alleviate this by adding entropy regularization or diversity bonus. However, these approaches do not change the \textit{winner-takes-all} nature, where rollouts still compete for individual advantage rather than cooperating for maximizing global diversity. In this work, we propose Group Cooperative Policy Optimization (GCPO), which shifts the training paradigm from rollout competition to team cooperation. Specifically, GCPO replaces independent rollout scoring with team-level credit assignment: a rollout is rewarded by how much it contributes to the team's valid solution coverage, rather than its individual accuracy. This coverage is described as a determinant volume over reward-weighted semantic embeddings, where only correct and non-redundant rollouts contribute to this volume. During advantage estimation, GCPO redistributes the collective team reward to each single rollout according to its average marginal contribution to the team. This cooperative training paradigm routes optimization toward non-redundant correct reasoning paths. Experiments across multiple reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that GCPO significantly improves both reasoning accuracy and solution diversity over existing approaches. Code will be released at https://github.com/bradybuddiemarch/gcpo.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate transformative potential, yet their reasoning remains inconsistent and unreliable. Reinforcement learning (RL)-based fine-tuning is a key mechanism for improvement, but its effectiveness is fundamentally governed by reward design. Despite its importance, the relationship between reward modeling and core LLM challenges--such as evaluation bias, hallucination, distribution shift, and efficient learning--remains poorly understood. This work argues that reward modeling is not merely an implementation detail but a central architect of reasoning alignment, shaping what models learn, how they generalize, and whether their outputs can be trusted. We introduce Reasoning-Aligned Reinforcement Learning (RARL), a reasoning-centric taxonomic perspective that organizes diverse reward paradigms for multi-step reasoning. Within this perspective, we present a taxonomy of reward mechanisms, analyze reward hacking as a pervasive failure mode, and examine how reward signals unify challenges ranging from inference-time scaling to hallucination mitigation. We further critically evaluate existing benchmarks, highlighting vulnerabilities such as data contamination and reward misalignment, and outline directions for more robust evaluation. By integrating fragmented research threads and clarifying the interplay between reward design and fundamental reasoning capabilities, this work provides a foundational roadmap for building reasoning models that are robust, verifiable, and trustworthy.

Large language models increasingly rely on either reinforcement learning or multi-agent prompting to improve reasoning, yet these two paradigms remain difficult to combine. Directly applying single-agent reinforcement learning to multi-turn multi-agent systems faces following dilemmas: i) Sparse rewards, role-level free-riding and excessive training overhead. ii) Agents only imitate to collaborate. iii) Fixed collaboration protocol falls into oscillating local optimum. We introduce TRACER, a turn-level reinforcement framework for cooperative multi-LLM reasoning. TRACER separates collaborative decision making into a controller-regret layer, where controllers learn whether the agents should speak or skip the current round through regret matching, and a generation-credit layer, which optimizes proposer and reviewer utterances with role-specific GSPO rewards. This design i) assigns credit at the level of both action modes and generated utterances, thus avoiding free-riding and sparse rewards. We only expand the choices made by the controllers, thus greatly reducing computational cost of training. Moreover, ii) agents acquire collaborative capability as they learn when to utter and what to speak. Finally, iii) by designing binary actions ingeniously, we extend classical game theory established for finite action spaces to deep learning, thus achieving mathematically rigorous convergence. We train all local RL-style methods on the GSM8K training split and evaluate on held-out GSM8K, MATH500, and GPQA-Diamond to measure in-domain accuracy, cross-benchmark generalization, inference cost, and correction-preservation behavior. The resulting framework provides a compact and reproducible testbed for studying learned collaboration policies beyond fixed debate, voting, or aggregation protocols. Code is available at https://github.com/Shark-Forest/TRACER.