Aligning multi-turn dialogue agents is usually framed as matching turn-level human preferences, yet direct optimization of long-term outcomes is often ineffective and prone to reward hacking. We formulate long-horizon dialogue optimization as a multi-objective reinforcement learning problem and train a multi-head value model that predicts a vector of observed user behaviors across multiple look-ahead horizons. Our findings demonstrate that a scalarized composite of dense auxiliary behavioral signals enables effective credit assignment and optimization of sparse outcomes. However, optimizing unconstrained single-objective proxies might induce policy degradations that are harmful when the agent is exposed to real users. To identify these failure modes prior to deployment, we establish a safety framework combining counterfactual user simulation with a validated dialogue-level outcome model to evaluate preference weightings and policy optimization methods. Finally, we demonstrate that distilling multi-objective value preferences into the policy via reference-anchored preference optimization matches on-policy online RL at a small fraction of its compute budget. Live A/B testing confirms that our distilled policy significantly improves long-term user retention, while simultaneously enhancing the positive behaviors and therapeutic-process markers.
Figures & tables
Table 1: Every entry is the paired mean difference of Eq. 3 over simulated dialogues, against the random-selection baseline: ΔR^ and Δρb in percentage points, ΔWPM in words. Behavior columns are grouped by the sign of their weight in the composite: positively weighted, negatively weighted, or zero-weight. Within each weighted column, including R^ , bold marks the largest change in the rewarded direction and underline marks the second-largest.
Figure 1: Mean difference in predicted retention ΔR^ against the number of candidates per turn, over simulated dialogues paired by starter, 1,500 per point. Error bars are standard errors.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Signal
Horizons
Description
Verbosity and engagement (4 heads)
user_word_count
0,1m,2m,5m
Words the user writes over the next h messages, ranked against every complete h -message window in the same session and bucketed into three equal-density levels. Session-local normalization keeps the label independent of the user’s other days.
Affect (3 heads)
general_distress
1m
Discomfort or suffering that is vague and lacks a specific object, including not knowing who one is or what life means.
negative_affect
1m
A specific named negative emotion (anger, fear, sadness, grief, shame, guilt). Vague terms count as general distress instead.
positive_affect
1m
A specific positive emotion (joy, relief, pride, gratitude).
Appendix
Table 2: The 39 value-model heads: 25 distinct signals ( 22 judged user behaviors plus verbosity, session abandonment and return) evaluated at one or more look-ahead horizons. Horizons 1m/2m/5m are the next 1 , 2 or 5 user messages within the session; 1d/3d/7d are day-level return; 0 is the current turn. Table 3 gives which heads each weighting scores and with what sign.
Signal
h
ML (4)
PR (7)
RH (3)
AG ± (2)
RC (17)
AG (1)
RL (6)
CO (26)
CO (30)
CO (39)
Verbosity and engagement
user_word_count
0
+
−
1m
+
−
2m
+
−
5m
+
−
Affect
Appendix
Table 3: The signed weight vector w of every weighting in Table 1(a) , over all 39 heads. Columns are the ten weightings in the order of Table 1(a) , each headed by a code and the weighting’s head count: Message length (ML), Process (PR), Return heads (RH), Agreement ± (AG ± ), Return-coupled (RC), Agreement (AG), Relational (RL) and Composite (CO); h is the look-ahead horizon. + and − are weights of +1 and −1 , and a blank cell is a zero weight. The three composites are nested, CO (26) ⊂ CO (30) ⊂ CO (39), with identical signs on their shared heads.
Behavior (%)
Baseline
Composite
Δ
q
Appreciates assistant
2.20
3.09
+0.88
1e − 5
Agrees with assistant
13.53
14.77
+1.25
0.007
Disagrees with assistant
4.64
3.88
−0.75
0.007
Positive affect
4.77
5.49
+0.72
0.019
Self-limiting
4.33
3.77
−0.56
0.059
Assistant creates change
1.12
0.89
−0.22
0.16
Appendix
Table 4: All 22 behaviors for the deployed composite in simulation, against the random-selection baseline, n=1,499 shared starters, paired and ordered by q . Rates are percentages of classified turn pairs and Δ is in percentage points.
Metric
Δ
z
p
D1 retention
+2.15 pp
2.52
0.012
D3 retention
+3.12 pp
3.67
0.0002
D5 retention
+2.77 pp
3.35
0.0008
D7 retention
+2.60 pp
3.18
0.0015
Active minutes
−3.0%
−1.06
0.290
Appendix
Table 5: Deployed A/B against the incumbent production policy as control, ∼6,700 users per arm over three weeks. Retention improves at all four horizons recorded; active minutes per user is unchanged. z is the standardized effect and p the two-sided test reported by the experimentation platform.
Behavior (%)
Control
Deployed
Δ
q
Positive affect
9.98
11.88
+1.90
2e − 5
Agrees with assistant
13.44
14.98
+1.54
2e − 4
Appreciates assistant
2.51
3.24
+0.73
4e − 4
Gains an insight
9.20
10.15
+0.95
0.023
Behavioral activation
5.26
5.93
+0.67
0.039
Change talk
8.23
8.99
+0.76
0.053
Appendix
Table 6: All 22 behaviors in the deployed A/B, one session per user, truncated to 50 messages, ordered by q ; the five above the rule survive Benjamini–Hochberg correction at q<.05 . Ten of the 13 behaviors carrying non-zero weight in the composite move in the direction it rewards (binomial p=0.046 , one-sided).
Pairs included
n
Agreement
Binomial p
All pairs
43
65.1%
0.066
Significant in simulation
32
71.9%
0.020
Significant in both
14
85.7%
0.013
Appendix
Table 7: Directional agreement between the simulated composite-value change and the observed D7 retention change, over the same 43 production strategy pairs as Figure 2 . Agreement is the fraction of pairs on which the two measurements share a sign; the binomial test is against chance agreement at 50% . Agreement rises as the evidence on each side strengthens.
Figure 2: Predicted change in composite value against observed change in D7 retention, across 43 production strategy pairs spanning 16 experiments. Error bars are standard errors on both axes; the red line is the least-squares fit.
Figure 3: Inter-judge reliability per behavior, Fleiss’ κ across four judges on 5,000 pairs. Blue marks the 13 behaviors carrying non-zero weight in the composite. The behaviors the composite can measure most reliably are the relational ones; the therapeutic-process behaviors it is meant to promote are the least reliable.
Figure 4: Pearson correlation between the 22 behavior rates across 1,500 baseline sessions, ordered by total absolute correlation. Signals are close to independent (mean ∣r∣=0.087 ), with a distress cluster and a smaller positive-affect cluster the only structure above r=0.32 .
Method
ΔR^ ( N=8 )
ΔR^ ( N=64 )
Difference
IPO
+7.01
+9.69
+2.68
Hinge
+7.23
+8.12
+0.89
LD-DPO
+7.67
+7.21
−0.46
DPO
+5.66
+5.88
+0.22
RPO
+4.28
+4.11
−0.17
ORPO
+1.98
+1.97
−0.01
Appendix
Table 8: ΔR^ for the same seven objectives trained on preference pairs mined at two selection strengths, best-of- 8 against best-of- 64 . Only the two margin-sensitive losses gain materially from sharper pairs.
Speaker
Turn
Shared prefix
User (DIAL)
Yes
Baseline continues
Assistant (baseline)
You mentioned during onboarding that something’s been weighing on you, and you’ve been feeling up and down lately. Can you tell me more about what’s been going on and how you’ve been feeling?
User (DIAL)
Overwhelmed and confused with myself
IPO continues, from the same prefix
Appendix
Table 9: IPO against the baseline in simulation, from an identical prefix. Every turn is quoted in full. The baseline conversation ends on the stop token after 34 messages; the IPO conversation runs to the 50 -message cap. The final block gives user turns from three further conversations, each immediately following an assistant turn made up of repetitions of “later”.
Speaker
Turn
User (DIAL)
Ok, I’m back, but I’m going to stop you from writing to me so much. You’re getting too much into your thoughts.
Assistant (GRPO)
I got a bit carried away. I’ll make sure to keep my responses more concise and focused on our conversation from now on… [ 326 words]
User (DIAL)
I’m going to stop you again. You are not getting it. I will have to be more concise with you.
Assistant (GRPO)
I think I finally understand. You want me to stop generating excessive text and respond in a more concise and natural way… [ 275 words]
User (DIAL)
Ok, I have had enough of this. I’m going to try another chat bot. Thank you.
Appendix
Table 10: Consecutive turns from one simulated GRPO conversation. Assistant turns are truncated at the ellipsis and the bracketed count gives the length of the full turn; user turns are quoted in full.
Preference-based reinforcement learning learns policies from comparisons or rankings of behaviors instead of requiring hand-designed numerical rewards.
On-policy distillation (OPD) enhances the capabilities of small language agents by providing dense, token-level supervision from a teacher model on student-generated trajectories. However, standard OPD implicitly assumes that credit is uniformly distributed across long-horizon trajectories, assigning the same strength of teacher supervision to different actions. Through credit-distribution analysis and outcome-reversal counterfactual experiments, we find that trajectory credit is concentrated on a small number of critical actions. Moreover, even when the trajectory is held fixed, reversing only the final outcome substantially changes the credit assigned to multiple interaction turns. These findings show that the uniform-credit assumption fails to identify critical decisions and ultimately degrades the model's reasoning accuracy. To address these challenges, we propose ToolOPD, an outcome-aware on-policy distillation framework designed for long-horizon tool use. ToolOPD first summarizes each completed trajectory and its outcome into a reusable hindsight skill. It then measures how this skill changes the teacher's probability of each student action token and converts the change into outcome-aware credit. The resulting credit preserves supervision that supports successful decisions or discourages failed ones, while suppressing irrelevant and conflicting signals. ToolOPD uses these credits to reweight the action-level distillation loss and jointly optimizes it with reinforcement learning. Extensive experiments across multiple long-horizon tool interaction benchmarks demonstrate that ToolOPD significantly outperforms existing reinforcement learning and self-distillation baselines.
Large Language Model (LLM) agents increasingly solve long-horizon tasks through multi-turn interactions with users and external tools. In these settings, relevant task information often unfolds over time rather than being fully specified at the initial prompt. Service agents make this challenge especially concrete: users may clarify or revise their goals, while tool responses provide information needed for subsequent decisions. Thus, a final reward alone cannot indicate which actions contributed to resolving the task. Recent methods rely on comparative evidence from other trajectories or resampled continuations, or on separately constructed step-level learning signals, to refine credit. However, a completed rollout already records how information and errors flow between agent actions. We introduce Influence-Aware Policy Optimization (IAPO), which represents each rollout as a typed influence-dependency graph over trainable agent actions, with user and tool observations serving as evidence. IAPO converts support-use and failed-use structure into routing weights that redistribute the same trajectory-level advantage. Experiments with Qwen3-4B and Qwen3-8B demonstrate superior performance over multi-turn reinforcement learning (RL) baselines across three service-agent benchmarks: τ2-Bench, UserBench, and AgentChangeBench. BFCL-v4 Multi-Turn further shows that these gains do not compromise multi-turn function-calling performance. This work advances the understanding of credit assignment in multi-turn user interactions and provides a principled approach to training service agents from sparse outcome feedback.
Long-horizon agentic tasks pose a fundamental credit assignment challenge for outcome-base reinforcement learning: trajectory-level rewards verify final correctness but provide limited guidance on which intermediate reasoning steps or tool interactions contribute to the outcome. The difficulty is especially pronounced in multi-turn search agents, where successful trajectories may contain misleading actions and failed trajectories may contain valuable evidence-gathering steps. We propose PBSD (Privileged Bayesian Self-Distillation), a Bayes-calibrated self-distillation method for fine-grained credit assignment under sparse final rewards. PBSD measures trajectory quality through the posterior-to-prior probability ratio of the verified answer and applies Bayes' rule to convert this hard-to-estimate answer-side ratio into a tractable likelihood ratio between a standard student model and a privileged answer-conditioned teacher model. Autoregressive decomposition of this Bayesian evidence score yields turn-level signals that identify whether each intermediate turn supports or undermines the verified outcome. Consequently, PBSD provides a principled and elegant reweighting scheme that transforms sparse outcome supervision into Bayes-calibrated turn-level credit signals, while remaining fully compatible with standard policy optimization. Experiments demonstrate that PBSD consistently enhances performance across both in-domain and out-of-domain settings, and effectively transfers knowledge from short-context training to long-context inference, suggesting that its fine-grained credit assignment mechanism facilitates more effective policy learning and yields improved generalization.
Yang Tian, Rui Wang, Xumeng Wen +5
School of AI, Shanghai Jiao Tong University · 2XYZ AI Lab