PRICE the Action Chunks: Physical Relational Credit Assignment for Embodied Reinforcement Learning

Agentic reinforcement learning requires assigning credit to environment-facing actions such as searches, clicks, edits, navigation commands, and object interactions. Standard GRPO uses the final verifier outcome as a uniform advantage over all action tokens. This outcome signal is useful but structurally incomplete: it punishes useful exploration in failed rollouts and reinforces redundant or regressive actions in successful rollouts. We propose TRIAGE, a role-typed credit assignment framework that adds a semantic role axis to outcome credit. A structured judge classifies each segment as decisive progress, useful exploration, no-progress infrastructure, or regression, and a fixed role-conditioned rule maps these labels to bounded segment-level process rewards. This keeps verifier outcomes as the source of optimization direction while correcting the two main blind spots of outcome-only credit. We further show that role-conditioned credit is the optimal segment-level correction expressible from role labels alone -- a projection of the per-segment advantage residual onto the role variable -- so that the fixed role constants reduce advantage estimation error whenever the judge is reliable, and we connect this to lower-variance policy gradients. Across ALFWorld, Search-QA, and WebShop, TRIAGE improves success rates over GRPO for two policy models and outperforms both a scalar judge-derived process reward and an outcome-supervised shared-backbone value baseline. Ablations show that the gain comes from role typing rather than merely adding dense rewards: reliable detection of regression inside successful trajectories is the dominant contributor, while exploration credit provides a consistent secondary gain; on completed ALFWorld and WebShop rollouts, TRIAGE also reduces environment-facing turns by an additional $10.4\%$ and $14.8\%$ relative to GRPO.

Long-horizon agentic tasks require an agent to modify an environment through a sequence of tool calls, with success determined by the final state. The standard recipe assigns a single outcome reward at the end and compares trajectories sampled for the same task. As a result, a group with no successful trajectory yields no training signal, failed attempts cannot be told apart by how close they came to completion, and turns that advance the task receive the same credit as turns that only query the environment. Prior work refines the unit of comparison from the trajectory to the step, or trains a reward model to supply intermediate signal: the former still derives its signal from final success alone, and the latter estimates it with a model. We observe that the acceptance checks that decide success can also be run on intermediate states, so progress is as verifiable as the outcome. We propose ProCredit, which turns this verified progress into credit: it reruns the acceptance checks after each turn, rewards the turn by its change in progress, and uses these rewards to assign credit both across attempts at the same task and across the turns within a trajectory. Starting from Qwen3.5 base models at three scales on AppWorld, ProCredit outperforms outcome-reward baselines and progress-based baselines in task completion rate at every scale on both test sets, exceeding the strongest outcome-reward baseline by 4.1 percentage points at 4B, and results in a second environment show the same direction of improvement. Ablations show that adding the final progress to the trajectory score alone does not improve performance: the gain comes from crediting progress to the turn where it occurs.

Outcome-based reinforcement learning provides verified feedback for language-model agents, but assigns trajectory-level advantage uniformly to all decisions, yielding coarse credit over long-horizon interactions. On-policy self-distillation offers finer supervision by re-evaluating sampled behavior with privileged information (PI) available only during training. However, fine-grained supervision is not necessarily fine-grained credit: PI-induced likelihood changes describe how additional information alters policy preference, but do not directly determine how an executable action should inherit the verified task outcome. This creates a supervision-credit gap. Privileged signals may be irrelevant to the current interaction state, operate at a token granularity misaligned with executable decisions, and lack the outcome semantics required for reinforcement. We introduce TASPO, which converts privileged supervision into outcome-grounded action credit. TASPO constructs decision-applicable PI from verified successful experience, aggregates PI-induced likelihood shifts at the executable-action level, and converts relative action support into positive, bounded, mean-preserving weights on the original trajectory advantage. Thus, the verified outcome determines the update direction and average scale, while PI only redistributes credit across actions. Across three agentic benchmarks, TASPO improves over GRPO by 10.6% and generalizes better to unseen tasks. Further analysis indicates that TASPO reduces supervision mismatch and that action-level assignment stabilizes the policy optimization process. These findings offer the community another interesting perspective.