Organizations: Dartmouth College · University of Notre Dame · University of California, Irvine · Georgia Institute of Technology · Northeastern University · Independent Researcher
Reinforcement learning improves tool-use agents, yet fine-grained credit assignment remains challenging even with step-level feedback. An observed error may be inherited from an earlier decision, while multiple responsible decisions may share the same downstream consequence or participate in later recovery. We introduce Error-Chain-Aware Optimization (ECHO), a responsibility-aware credit assignment framework that separates responsibility identification from credit allocation. A frozen judge combines retrospective trajectory analysis with decision-time assessment from the policy-visible prefix to distinguish newly introduced errors, inherited consequences, missed corrections, and successful corrections. ECHO then counts shared downstream consequences once across responsible decisions and constrains rewards for repairing self-induced errors through source-funded recovery, producing bounded action-level supervision alongside terminal supervision. Experiments on six diverse tool-use benchmarks at both 4B and 8B scales show strong and consistent improvements over the compared baselines, with ECHO achieving the highest score on five of six benchmarks at each scale. These results support decision responsibility as a useful basis for fine-grained credit assignment in tool-use agents. Our code is available at https://github.com/xid32/ECHO.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: ECHO on an error chain. Left: Responsibility depends on decision-time visibility: Step 2 inherits the error before the mismatch is visible, while Step 3 misses a correction after disclosure. Right: Credit allocation counts the wrong-item consequence once across Steps 1 and 3 and funds Step 4’s repair credit from Step 1.
Figure 2: Overview of ECHO. (a) Full-trajectory review proposes candidate events, propagation links, and restoration evidence, while decision-time assessment classifies each selected action as New , Inh , Miss , or Corr . (b) Shared consequences are counted once across responsible actions, then weighted, normalized, and adjusted by source-funded recovery to yield signed action-level corrections δt . (c) Terminal and local supervision are optimized through separately clipped outcome-level and action-level branches with KL regularization.
Overall score
Model
BFCL-v3
BFCL-v4
τ -bench
τ2 -Bench
ToolSandbox
ACEBench
4B
Qwen3 ( Yang et al., 2025 )
25.38
38.61
33.44
15.83
52.89
55.28
EnvScaler ( Song et al., 2026 )
37.25
52.92
48.78
33.05
62.25
63.33
Arctic-AWM ( Wang et al., 2026b )
38.89
49.55
26.58
22.57
68.24
60.58
ECHO (ours)
41.24
53.71
50.77
35.81
76.36
62.46
8B
Qwen3 ( Yang et al., 2025 )
28.88
41.58
36.65
26.44
59.74
60.00
Table 1: Overall results on six tool-use benchmarks at the 4B and 8B scales, spanning multi-turn function calling, conversational task completion, and stateful tool execution. For BFCL-v3, we report the overall score on the Multi-Turn (MT) subset. For ACEBench, we report results on the Agent subset. Scores are percentages. Bold and underlined values mark the best and second-best results within each scale.
τ -bench
τ2 -Bench
Model
Retail
Airline
Overall
Retail
Airline
Telecom
Overall
4B
Qwen3 ( Yang et al., 2025 )
40.87
26.00
33.44
19.96
21.00
9.43
15.83
EnvScaler ( Song et al., 2026 )
49.57
48.00
48.78
50.00
36.00
13.16
33.05
Arctic-AWM ( Wang et al., 2026b )
30.15
23.00
26.58
30.26
19.00
16.45
22.57
ECHO (ours)
52.03
49.50
50.77
54.09
36.00
17.33
35.81
8B
Qwen3 ( Yang et al., 2025 )
45.79
27.50
36.65
34.43
26.50
18.42
26.44
Table 2: Domain-level results on τ -bench and τ2 -Bench at the 4B and 8B scales. All scores are reported as percentages. Bold and underlined values mark the best and second-best results within each model scale.
Model
Base
Missing Function
Missing Parameter
Long Context
Overall
4B
Qwen3 ( Yang et al., 2025 )
32.00
20.00
24.00
25.50
25.38
EnvScaler ( Song et al., 2026 )
46.50
38.50
28.50
35.50
37.25
Arctic-AWM ( Wang et al., 2026b )
48.55
36.50
34.22
36.30
38.89
ECHO (ours)
50.50
46.58
32.59
35.27
41.24
8B
Qwen3 ( Yang et al., 2025 )
32.00
33.50
22.00
28.00
28.88
EnvScaler ( Song et al., 2026 )
50.50
41.50
29.50
44.00
41.38
Table 3: BFCL-v3 Multi-Turn results across Base, Missing Function, Missing Parameter, and Long Context conditions at the 4B and 8B scales. Overall is the unweighted mean across the four conditions. All scores are reported as percentages. Bold and underlined values mark the best and second-best results within each model scale.
Figure 3: Case studies comparing agent behavior before (Qwen3) and after (ECHO) training on the same task.
Figure 4: Ablation of ECHO components on τ2 -Bench and BFCL-v3 Multi-Turn at the 8B scale.
Figure 5: Reward ablation on τ2 -Bench at the 8B scale. Each group compares five supervision configurations, and Overall denotes the mean across the three domains.
Figure 6: Frozen-judge comparison at the 8B scale. Left: downstream ECHO performance on τ2 -Bench. Right: responsibility identification accuracy on 100 manually verified samples before reliability gating.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: Reward ablation on BFCL-v3 Multi-Turn at 8B. Overall is the mean across Base, Missing Function, Missing Parameter, and Long Context.
Semantic family
Observed diagnostics
Evidence required for responsibility assignment
Format, schema, and types
Malformed calls; parameter or type mismatches.
Visible schema constraints, actionable rejections, and execution of a corrected call.
Tool selection and call count
Incorrect function, call count, or relevance decision.
Available tools, selection obligations, and provenance of an inherited choice.
Arguments, entities, and values
Incorrect argument, entity, value, or parallel-call match.
Visible value constraints, the source of reused data, and verified value correction.
State and prerequisites
State mismatch; unmet database, environment, or milestone checks.
Applicable preconditions, the responsible state transition, and verified restoration.
Execution and omitted work
Missing or mismatched execution; process-score deficits.
Required operations and current progress, with a feasible continuation or correction.
Retrieval, memory, and answers
Expected answer absent after search or memory use.
Retrieved evidence, stored-state provenance, and correction of the affected fact.
Appendix
Table 4: Semantic families of checker diagnostics and the evidence each requires for responsibility assignment. Diagnostics (23 literal error_type codes and 19 derived signals) are drawn from 14,014 scored Qwen3 base-model trajectories (7,007 each at 4B and 8B) across the six benchmarks. Families can overlap within a trajectory. A further 2,319 unlocalized or unmapped occurrences fall outside these families (§ H ).
Exact diagnostic string
Semantic family
Occurrences
agentic:answer_not_found
Retrieval, memory, and answers
752
ast_decoder:decoder_failed
Format, schema, and types
3
class attributes wrong
State and prerequisites
53
context_limit_exceeded
Progress, stopping, and limits; Runtime and external boundary
4
irrelevance_error:decoder_success
Tool selection and call count
540
multiple_function_checker:wrong_count
Tool selection and call count
47
Appendix
Table 5: Literal error_type codes recorded by benchmark checkers, with their semantic families and occurrence counts. A code mapped to two families lists both, separated by a semicolon.
Exact diagnostic string
Semantic family
Occurrences
acebench:process_score<1
Execution and omitted work
53
audit:score<1_without_listed_diagnostic
Unmapped or unlocalized
2,278
record:explicit_exception_or_error
Runtime and external boundary
51
tau2:action_checks:action_match=false
Execution and omitted work
897
tau2:communicate_checks:met=false
Communication obligations
38
tau2:db_match=false
State and prerequisites
365
Appendix
Table 6: Derived diagnostic signals computed from benchmark records, with their semantic families and occurrence counts. Signals marked as unmapped or unlocalized fall outside the eleven families of Table 4 .
Figure 8: Base-model New events.
Figure 9: Base-model Inh events.
Figure 10: Base-model Miss events.
Figure 11: Base-model Corr events.
Figure 12: Paired comparisons of Qwen3 (before training) and ECHO (after training) on the same tasks.
Figure 13: Paired comparisons of Qwen3 and ECHO on the same tasks (continued).
Figure 14: Paired comparisons of Qwen3 and ECHO on the same tasks (continued).
Figure 15: Paired comparisons of Qwen3 and ECHO on the same tasks (continued).
Figure 16: Paired comparisons of Qwen3 and ECHO on the same tasks (continued).
Multi-turn agents solve complex tasks through extended sequences of tool interactions before producing a final answer, making credit assignment a fundamental challenge during post-training. Outcome rewards provide reliable supervision for short-horizon reasoning, but become sparse and high-variance as trajectories grow to tens or hundreds of tool calls. They can also be misleading: a failed rollout may contain many useful actions that move the agent closer to the goal, yet outcome-only training assigns them the same negative advantage as the eventual mistake. We propose TRACE (Turn-level Reward Assignment via Credit Estimation), a dense credit-assignment method for agentic reinforcement learning. TRACE represents rollouts as state transitions at tool-call boundaries, obtains gold-answer log-probabilities from a frozen reference model, transforms them into log-ratio state values, and derives per-action rewards as Temporal-Difference changes in those values. This requires no additional critic or process-label training, and its one-step log-ratio TD component telescopes across redundant tool calls. On long-horizon complex search, TRACE substantially improves base-model tool-use ability using pure RL, without a cold-start supervised fine-tuning stage, an agentic mid-training stage, or training on live-web data. On the closed-web BrowseComp-Plus benchmark, it raises Qwen3-4B from 7.2 to 35.6 and Qwen3-30B-A3B from 8.4 to 42.6. The learned search behavior also transfers to open-web benchmarks, and the learning curves show earlier improvement and faster convergence during RL training.
Leitian Tao, Baolin Peng, Wenlin Yao +5
University of Wisconsin–Madison · Microsoft Research
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) offers a verifier-bounded performance ceiling for training multi-turn tool-use agents, yet its trajectory-level credit assignment conflates heterogeneous per-turn outcomes into a single reward signal. On-policy distillation provides dense per-token supervision but is either teacher-bounded or prone to gradient concentration collapse. We introduce CrEST, a hierarchical credit assignment framework that retains RL's verifier-bounded ceiling while incorporating dense token-level signals from a privileged self-teacher. CrEST resolves credit at two levels: turn-segmented verified advantages address inter-turn dilution, while entropy-gated self-teacher modulation refines intra-turn token contributions. Experiments on BFCL V3 and WildToolBench show that CrEST consistently outperforms both RL and distillation baselines across two model scales, with the largest gains on long-trajectory and strict session-level metrics. Our work demonstrates that the teacher's role in policy optimization can be reduced from determining update directions to modulating update magnitudes, unlocking dense credit assignment without sacrificing the verifier-bounded ceiling.
Zechuan Wang, Siyuan Lu, Hongxuan Zhang +3
Zhejiang University · AWorld Team, Inclusion AI · Shanghai Innovation Institute +2
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.