Co-Evolving Actor-Conditioned Critics for Non-Verifiable Generation
Authors: Jinyoung Kim, Muhammad Khalifa, Lajanugen Logeswaran, Jaekyeom Kim, Moontae Lee, Honglak Lee, Lu Wang
Organizations: University of Michigan · LG AI Research · University of Illinois at Chicago
Abstract
Natural-language critiques provide supervision beyond scalar rewards for non-verifiable generation, which lacks deterministic verifiers. In critique-guided refinement, a critic gives feedback on an initial response and an actor revises it. However, final revision quality does not reveal whether the critique was actually useful: a capable actor may improve without following the feedback, while valid feedback may fail if the actor cannot execute it. We frame critique as actor-conditioned revision guidance, where usefulness depends on whether the feedback helps the target actor address the intended weakness. We introduce TAIScore (Targeted Actionable Improvement Score), a reward that evaluates the instruction, initial response, critique, and revision together, assessing whether the critique targets a real weakness, whether the actor follows it, and whether the intended aspect improves. We use this reward to train an actor-tailored critic with GRPO, and use critique-guided refinements to construct DPO preference pairs for the actor, forming a co-evolving critic-actor loop where the critic adapts to the actor's changing capability. Experiments show that an 8B critic trained with TAIScore outperforms both a zero-shot 120B critic and critics trained with outcome-only or critique-only reward signals. Co-evolving the critic and actor further improves performance, suggesting that effective critique supervision should adapt as the actor changes.
In structured decision-making workflows such as form filling, compliance checking, and maintenance reporting, LLM outputs must be locally correct, globally consistent, and auditable against task-specific rules. Existing refinement methods often rely on heuristic debate, self-play, or LLM-generated supervision, creating a second-order assurance problem. We propose DPA-GRPO (Dual Paired-Action Group-Relative Policy Optimization), a paired-action training method for a two-player generator--verifier game with structured verifier interventions. The generator proposes outputs and may revise them when challenged; the verifier either remains silent or raises a safety assurance case (SAC) containing a claim, argument, and evidence. These SAC/no-SAC and KEEP/REVISE decisions induce paired counterfactual action groups, which DPA-GRPO uses for role-specific KL-regularized GRPO updates. We analyze the unregularized game and show that positive probability on strictly lower-reward intervention or revision actions creates a profitable unilateral deviation. Under standard stochastic-approximation assumptions, DPA-GRPO tracks the corresponding game ODE, whose isolated asymptotically stable limit points are stationary and candidate local equilibria under role-wise local optimality. Experiments on TaxCalcBench TY24 show that DPA-GRPO improves structured decision accuracy over zero-shot generation and generator-only RL baselines across Qwen3-4B and Qwen3-8B. Training increases correct silent acceptance, reduces missed errors, and improves calibrated revision behavior, indicating gains for both generator and verifier.
As LLMs are increasingly used for pre-submission self-review, there is growing demand for feedback that not only identifies weaknesses but also guides authors toward concrete revisions. We study this as Actionable Peer-review Generation and decompose it into two subtasks: diagnostic claim generation and revision suggestion generation. We introduce ActReview, a rebuttal-guided post-training framework that connects paper-specific diagnoses to concrete, grounded revision plans. Our central insight is that author rebuttals reveal plausible actions for addressing reviewer concerns and can therefore provide latent supervision for revision-oriented feedback. From real review-rebuttal threads on OpenReview, we construct ActReview-40K by aligning reviewer weaknesses with author responses and grounding the resulting feedback in localized paper evidence. We post-train Qwen3-8B-Base with multi-task supervised fine-tuning followed by GRPO using candidate-aware, weakness-specific rubric rewards. We also introduce ActReview-Bench, a human-curated benchmark of 1,000 instances for evaluating diagnostic quality and revision usefulness. Experiments show that ActReview outperforms prior specialized review-generation models on actionability and grounding while remaining competitive with strong prompt-based LLMs. Human evaluation confirms improved revision usefulness while revealing a remaining gap in technical accuracy, and additional analyses support generalization to held-out papers and robustness across independent judges.
Large language model-based agents make mistakes, yet critique can often guide the same model toward correct behavior. However, when critique is removed, the model may fail again on the same query, indicating that it has not internalized the critique's guidance into its underlying capability. Meanwhile, a frozen critic cannot improve its feedback quality over time, limiting the potential for iterative self-improvement. To address this, we propose learning to internalize self-critique with reinforcement learning(ICRL), a novel framework that jointly trains a solver and a critic from a shared backbone to convert critique-induced success into unassisted solver ability. The critic is rewarded based on the solver's subsequent performance gain, incentivizing actionable feedback. To address the distribution shift between critique-conditioned and critique-free behavior, ICRL introduces a distribution-calibration re-weighting ratio that selectively transfers critique-guided improvements compatible with the solver's own prompt distribution. Additionally, a role-wise group advantage estimation stabilizes joint optimization across the two roles. Together, these mechanisms ensure that the solver learns to improve itself without external critique, rather than becoming dependent on critique-conditioned behavior. We evaluate ICRL on diverse benchmarks spanning agentic and mathematical reasoning tasks, using Qwen3-4B and Qwen3-8B as backbones. Results show consistent improvements, with average gains of 6.4 points over GRPO on agentic tasks, and 7.0 points on mathematical reasoning. Notably, the learned 8B critic is comparable to 32B critics while using substantially fewer tokens. The code is available at https://github.com/brick-pid/ICRL.