Credit Scoring

Credit-risk models are trained on proxy labels and deployed under temporal and segment change, yet no single transfer metric separates base-rate shift, probability-scale shift, and feature-label relationship change. We contribute a design-science artifact: a locked, multi-signal audit protocol for supervision drift in proxy-labeled credit-risk prediction. Five layers (transfer performance, an oracle-gap probe, a calibration diagnostic, feature-label stability, and a synthetic positive control), thresholds, and decision rules were locked before interpretation; a bounded reading is a designed outcome. On a public LendingClub dataset (temporal 2013 to 2016 and cross-segment transfer), ranking is stable and oracle gaps are small; the clearest temporal signal is a prevalence and probability-scale mismatch that intercept-only diagnostic recalibration largely reduces, though its cause is not identifiable from the available release. The positive control responds only to larger injected shifts; subtler drift cannot be excluded. Mapping diagnostic patterns to governance actions is conceptual guidance, not validated here.

Tree-structured rollouts give critic-free reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) step-level credit: fork a chain at an intermediate point, and sibling outcome differences estimate step value. Each fork adds sampling cost, so realistic budgets typically allow only a few forks per chain. A fork placed where the outcome is already largely settled yields siblings that mostly agree and provide almost no credit signal; hence, for a given tree size, where forks are placed largely determines how much step-level RL can gain. Most existing mainstream methods place forks by structure, such as fixed lengths, midpoints, and delimiters, or by next-token entropy. We formalize fork placement as locating the \emph{pivots} of the chain's value curve, where the expected outcome turns. We propose \emph{belief-shift branching}: read the model's answer belief at candidate boundaries and fork just before the step where consecutive beliefs diverge most. Three instantiations, none needing step-level supervision, span access levels: a black-box probe, a logit-lens depth profile, and a learned activation direction, which is fit offline and therefore used only in the validation before RL training. The signal only \emph{places} forks, and the probe costs about $1\%$ of step compute on mathematics and under $5\%$ on code when it runs inside the rollout engine. In that validation, against Monte-Carlo value curves, a belief-shift signal ranks first in each of the eight model$\times$benchmark panels, ahead of entropy, structural, and LLM-judge baselines. In RL across three model families and two domains, belief-shift forking leads every mathematics aggregate, on OLMo-3-7B by $+2.6$ aggregate and $+2.9$ on AIME 2026 over the strongest baseline, and sweeps every OLMo code column, by $+6.5$ on LiveCodeBench-medium.

Machine learning-based credit scoring is increasingly central to Peer-to-Peer (P2P) lending, yet its resilience to adversarial manipulation, where applicants strategically alter self-reported inputs to secure favourable decisions, remains poorly understood. Most adversarial-robustness evidence comes from image and text domains and evaluates a single attack against a matching defence, offering little guidance on how defences generalise across attack types in tabular credit data. We address this with a systematic train-test robustness benchmark on a large Lending Club subset, spanning three model families (logistic regression, a feed-forward neural network, and a transformer for tabular data) and four attacks confined to applicant-mutable features: Fast Gradient Sign Method (FGSM), Projected Gradient Descent (PGD), Salt-and-Pepper (S&P) noise, and DeepFool, plus a mixed-attack regime. Across a full grid evaluated with stratified cross-validation, adversarial training sharply improves robustness against the attack it is trained on and transfers well within the gradient-based family, but transfers weakly to non-gradient corruption, so single-attack defences overstate real-world resilience. Mixed training delivers the most balanced robustness across heterogeneous attacks while preserving clean-test performance, supporting multi-attack stress testing in credit-model governance.

Recurrent models provide a natural path to long-context modeling, yet models trained with backpropagation through time (BPTT) often fail beyond their training horizon. Classical analyses emphasize gradients that vanish or explode along temporal paths. However, dense per-token losses can still train a shared recurrent rule despite severe decay, showing that decay alone does not determine whether learning fails. We instead study state credit: the signal through which future losses reach earlier recurrent states before contributing to parameter updates. Accordingly, we intervene directly on state credit and propose Credit Stabilization through Time (CST). During backward propagation, CST locally rescales the state-credit signal to stabilize its norm without rotating the component being corrected, while leaving the forward computation unchanged. Because controlled synthetic tasks and real data exhibit different credit dynamics, we specialize CST to each regime. In both settings, CST improves performance beyond the training horizon, with gains observed at up to 128x the training length.

Citation-based measures of scientific influence typically treat citations as uniform signals, ignoring the different roles that cited works play in a paper's contribution. We introduce contribution-based credit scoring for research articles: a structured citation analysis that decomposes a paper's credit between its own original contribution and the prior work it builds on. Motivated by a cooperative-game view of scientific credit, we propose the contribution tree, a hierarchical framework that conserves importance across the document structure and separates original from citation-derived contribution. To make this framework scalable, we use LLMs as noisy comparative estimators of local importance. We further extend the model to article collections by propagating contributions through weighted citation graphs, yielding corpus-level contributions and normalized influence scores. Our experiments suggest that our framework captures contribution signals beyond surface-level heuristics. Our code is available at https://github.com/sanaebrahimi/Importance_Scoring/

Sparse outcome feedback limits what robots can learn from unsuccessful attempts at complex manipulation. Failed multi-stage surgical attempts can contain grasps, lifts, or transfers worth reusing. In sparse-reward reinforcement learning, terminal rewards collapse such attempts to the same outcome, while scalar vision-language model (VLM) ratings reveal neither what progress merits credit nor when it occurred. We introduce phase-and-first-arrival feedback: one VLM query per recorded episode identifies the furthest visually verified task phase and when that phase is first reached, allowing the learner to reuse partial behavior and localize credit. We instantiate it in SurgPhaseBench, a phase-structured suite spanning rigid and deformable tasks, and evaluate it in simulation and hardware. Across five simulated tasks, our method reaches 75.2% mean success, compared with 52.1% for a reward based on Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training (CLIP) using the same visual input; the advantage persists when only the feedback representation changes. On hardware, the same record supports autonomous block picking and slip recovery. Together, these results show that trajectory-level visual supervision can preserve partial progress while providing the temporal credit needed for sparse-reward control.

Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards works well when a task has a programmatic checker, but most long-horizon agent domains have none. We work in the outcome-blind setting, where ground-truth success signals are not available. Multi-criteria rubrics are a popular way to supply such a reward; they are scored once per trajectory, but a single scalar is a poor signal across tens of steps. We propose DRACO: Distributing Rubric-based Advantage for Credit Optimization. It generates rubrics dynamically during training to track the policy's evolving capability, scores those rubrics once per completed trajectory, and redistributes that judgment over the steps responsible for annotated rubrics to produce differentiated per-step advantages in GRPO. The redistribution is closed-form and does not introduce any trained attribution module. On AppWorld, DRACO gains 15.9 points over the base model and 5.3 points over GRPO trained with a sparse ground-truth reward, despite not using any verifiers itself. On out-of-domain Tau-Bench, it gains 5.3 points over the base model even without a frontier judge, beating both ground-truth-reward training and other rubric-based training settings. The code for DRACO is available at https://github.com/IBM/draco.

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.

Credit assignment in multi-turn agent reinforcement learning operates at two levels: assigning trajectory-level credit to actions and distributing each action's credit across its tokens. In this paper, we introduce FACTOR, which separates these decisions. FACTOR uses checkpoint-calibrated TD residuals to assign per-action credits that telescope to the trajectory advantage, and feedback-conditioned teacher-student likelihood gaps to allocate each credit across the realized action tokens. Per-action normalization preserves the action-average coefficient and prevents token-level sign flips. We pair this construction with an action-mean reduction, removing the implicit dependence of an action's scalar surrogate weight on its token length. At the behavior policy and before clipping, each action's inner action-mean surrogate equals its TD credit. FACTOR consistently improves over competitive baselines across ALFWorld, WebShop, and ScienceWorld, with every environment-seed comparison favoring FACTOR and the largest gains emerging on the longest-horizon environment. The same hyperparameters transfer without retuning to a larger backbone and to a different model family. Ablations identify TD action credit as the dominant driver of the improvement, with hindsight token allocation contributing complementary gains.

Multi-agent reasoning (MAR) improves reasoning reliability through iterative solution exchange and refinement. Existing adaptive MAR methods typically learn routing decisions from query-level labels or trajectory-level returns, but such coarse supervision cannot accurately estimate the state-conditioned utility of individual operators in multi-step collaboration. We propose TreeCredit, a shared-prefix credit assignment framework for efficient adaptive MAR. Its core insight is to estimate operator utility through state-matched downstream comparisons, rather than directly attributing trajectory-level outcomes to preceding decisions. TreeCredit constructs shared-prefix collaboration trees by expanding candidate operators from the same intermediate state and assigns each state--operator pair a correctness-prioritized suffix credit based on the terminal correctness and cumulative additional cost of its complete continuation. These structured credits are converted into state-local operator preferences to train a lightweight pairwise state router, which dynamically selects the next admissible operator during inference. Experiments on six reasoning benchmarks show that TreeCredit modestly improves accuracy while substantially reducing inference cost, achieving a better accuracy--cost trade-off than representative MAR methods.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is central to improving long-CoT reasoning in large language models. Critic-free methods such as GRPO convert response-level rewards into advantages and uniformly broadcast them across tokens, overlooking their unequal contributions to the final outcome. On-policy self-distillation (OPSD) instead provides dense distributional supervision by minimizing the forward KL divergence between an unprivileged policy and a privileged self-teacher, implicitly assuming that the resulting likelihood shifts encode reliable answer-aligned information. We test this premise by fixing each sampled trajectory and re-scoring it under two opposing outcome conditions, one asserting correctness and the other incorrectness. Most affected tokens shift in the same direction under both conditions, with few sign reversals and substantial overlap in the induced optimization signals. Large shifts also concentrate on highly substitutable surface-form tokens, whereas tokens carrying problem-specific reasoning content are less sensitive. These findings show that privileged shifts fail to provide reliable answer-aligned directions, while their magnitudes primarily reflect counterfactual sensitivity rather than token-level learning value. Based on these observations, we propose Counterfactual Sensitivity Credit Reallocation (CSCR), a simple extension of GRPO that reduces credit for highly sensitive tokens and renormalizes token-level advantages to preserve both the original credit budget and verifier-determined direction. On long-CoT mathematical reasoning benchmarks, CSCR consistently outperforms GRPO baseline with the same number of policy updates. Targeted ablations further corroborate our diagnosis: privilege-induced directions are unreliable, moderate downweighting is most effective, and stronger modulation destabilizes optimization.

Large language models increasingly support scientific and algorithmic discovery through inference-time search over evaluated candidates. Existing adaptive discovery controllers assign credit based only on score progress, even though prompt length, retries, and guidance calls cause search actions to incur different token costs. We prove that cost-blind credit can forfeit all but a vanishing fraction of attainable quality as frontiers multiply and costs diverge. Under a fixed search-side token budget, the controller must decide which frontier is improving and whether its gain justifies the realized cost before the budget is exhausted. We introduce \textbf{CostAda}, a cost-calibrated adaptive controller built around \emph{cost-calibrated frontier utility}. The utility values frontier progress relative to realized action cost and conditions that credit on the remaining budget. CostAda uses this signal to control local exploration intensity, frontier allocation, and budgeted tactic intervention. Cost and remaining budget therefore shape the search rather than serving only as accounting variables or a stopping rule. CostAda reaches the strongest baseline's full-budget quality with at most half the budget on twelve of sixteen benchmark--backbone pairs while achieving the strongest mean final quality on all eight benchmarks under GLM-5 and GPT-5.4.

Logic Gate Networks (LGNs) compute through compositions of Boolean operations, yet existing LGNs do not reliably benefit from increased depth. We identify two causes: optimization collapse and topology-induced degradation of output-specific credit that persists even after skip-biased initialization and straight-through estimation stabilize training. We introduce Input-Anchored Logic Gate Networks (IALGNs), in which each gate combines a private hidden spine with a direct input anchor. This topology prevents output-path merging while retaining input access at every layer. Credit diagnostics show that random wiring dilutes or conflicts output-specific gradients, whereas IALGN maintains usable and coherent credit. Random-$k_x$ relaxation improves anchor selection without relaxing the spine. Across MNIST, CIFAR-10, and CIFAR-100, IALGN exhibits consistent fixed-width depth--accuracy scaling up to 150 layers, while alternative topologies saturate or degrade. Linear probes, topology ablations, and operation-aware analysis show that trained IALGNs preserve private states and apply sparse anchor-conditioned updates. These results indicate that scalable LGN depth requires both stable optimization and credit-preserving information access.

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.

Multi-agent systems (MAS) coordinate multiple LLM-powered agents through structured workflows, gaining reasoning power but incurring high inference latency from multi-step execution and repeated model invocations. Existing orchestration methods primarily optimize task performance and inference cost, leaving latency largely unaddressed. In MAS, end-to-end latency is governed by the critical execution path, so reducing total cost alone does not reliably reduce latency. Moreover, optimizing latency while preserving accuracy remains non-trivial: naive latency optimization can misassign operator-level credit and degrade task accuracy. To address this gap, we propose Latency-Aware Multi-agent System (LAMaS), a latency-aware orchestration framework for learning-based multi-agent systems. LAMaS addresses this challenge at two levels: at training time, it learns latency-aware execution graphs through constrained optimization with critical-path-aware credit assignment; at inference time, since a graph committed at training time cannot exploit runtime evidence, it complements graph construction with a lightweight controller that adaptively eliminates redundant future agent interactions as execution unfolds. Experiments on four benchmarks show that LAMaS achieves the best latency among evaluated learning-based MAS baselines, reducing end-to-end latency by over 50% while maintaining competitive or better accuracy. LAMaS is also modular and transfers to other MAS with minimal changes, consistently yielding latency reductions.

LLM agents today are caught in an awkward bind. Lock them down with static safety instructions and they rarely venture beyond the obvious; give them free reign with tools and multi-agent debate, and safety violations quickly follow. Rather than forcing a single model to juggle both creativity and caution, we separate the concerns across specialized roles. A Disrupter generates unconventional proposals, a Validator enforces hard runtime checks at the tool gateway, and a Broker pulls in distant but relevant analogies. Failures are not discarded -- they are compiled, via MCTS, into compact, signed constraint patches we call Scars. These patches are cached locally and inherited by future cohorts, turning repeated failures into reusable, low-cost runtime constraints. In a spatial-semantic sandbox (N=20 runs, p<0.01), our cohort reaches remote targets where debate fails, the Validator prevents all executed breaches, and Scars reduce token consumption by 15.1% by avoiding redundant validator checks. Furthermore, credit-based Communication Allocation Scores (CAS) restrict outbound bandwidth, reducing overall token costs by 55.9% under resource constraints.

Financial markets evolve in response to real-world events reported in news, yet these drivers often remain implicit in text. To better explain market dynamics, event-market relations must be explicitly modeled through factual, company-centric, and environment-aware knowledge graphs. We present FinKG-News, a framework that automatically constructs such graphs by extracting news events as anchors linked to companies. Using FinKG-News as grounded evidence that integrates events, news, and company data, we develop an in-context learning architecture for credit risk report generation across three core financial dimensions. Automatic and human evaluations show that automated hallucination detection and quality assessment remain unreliable, making expert judgment indispensable. Our approach consistently outperforms baselines, improving quality by 19%-34% while reducing hallucinations. The source code and project resources are publicly available at: https://github.com/ichise-laboratory/FINKG-news.

Advances in generative AI are rapidly increasing the quality and commercial value of generated music, and this progress depends on large catalogs of creators' recordings. This raises a central question for platform design: how should creators be compensated when their work is used to train generative AI models that in turn produce commercial outputs? We develop a framework for fairly compensating creators in generative-music markets, where each creator's payment depends on a data-attribution score estimating their contribution to model outputs. Compared to past compensation frameworks, our framework has two unique considerations: (1) attribution is traced to entire creator catalogs, not individual songs, and (2) the informativeness (signal-to-noise ratio) of the attribution score is an input to the payment mechanism. The framework yields a closed-form payment rule per creator and measures the welfare cost of inaccurate attribution for both creators and the platform. Whether the welfare-optimal contract is royalty-based or takes the form of fixed-fee licensing depends on how informative attribution is for that creator's catalog. We show that better attribution translates directly into welfare gains for both creators and the platform, yet under multi-platform competition a platform only captures gains from attribution improvements when its signal becomes the most precise in the market. To ground our framework in empirical behavior, we train acoustic and symbolic music generation models and measure the informativeness of scalable attribution techniques against a leave-one-catalog-out ground truth. Our experiments reveal that noisy attribution signals push payment toward fixed-fee licensing and diminish welfare for both creators and the platform, providing an economic motivation for further research on improved attribution.

Reasoning language models frequently overthink: generating extended chains of behaviors such as hedging, approach abandonment, and self contradiction that consume tokens without improving answers. We show that these behaviors are not merely a consequence of length; even when controlling for response length, incorrect traces exhibit higher rates of unproductive self-reflection than correct ones. Addressing this requires identifying where self-reflection helps vs hurts, but obtaining these step-level annotations is costly. We observe that intermediate answer commitments within reasoning traces can provide a cheap proxy: by comparing each final answer candidate in the trace to the ground truth, we can determine whether subsequent reflection is productive without any additional supervision. Building on this insight, we propose DASH (Drift Aware advantage SHaping), which assigns segment-level credit based on whether each reasoning segment leads toward or away from correctness. On competition-level math benchmarks, DASH achieves the highest accuracy where overthinking is prevalent (AIME25: 50.8% vs. 45.4% GRPO) while reducing overthinking behaviors and achieving more productive self-correction than baselines.

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.

Agentic multimodal models perform diverse operations on an image via code and reason over the returned view, an effective paradigm for fine-grained visual question answering. However, code operations can be useful, redundant, or misleading. Outcome-only rewards cannot precisely distinguish these cases, and existing process rewards either fail to attribute final correctness to individual tool calls, or require an external judge model. To address this, we introduce Tool-Augmented Credit Optimization (TACO), a GRPO variant for code-tool agents built on two coupled advantage channels. The first, Differential Answer-Probe Reward (DAPR), is a self-supervised, judge-free tool-contribution advantage that credits each tool call by its own effect on answering correctly. Probe tokens inserted into the model's reasoning elicit its predictions with and without the tool, and the difference in outcome reward is taken as the call's value: positive for a useful call, negative for a misleading one, and zero for one that changes nothing. This reuses the existing answer checker with no auxiliary judge, and, being a difference rather than an absolute probe score, is naturally robust to probe-hacking. The second is the outcome advantage from the final answer, distributed by Outcome-Gated Advantage Routing (OGAR): a parameter-free rule that, conditioned on the call's outcome, delivers this credit only to the responsible segments, suppressing wasted tool calls without any cost term. We train TACO through a two-stage SFT+RL pipeline. Extensive experiments across perception, reasoning, and general multimodal benchmarks show that it yields consistent accuracy gains and learns to invoke its tools only when they help.

How does an agent that can tell self from world come to be durably shaped by that distinction? Recent work shows that a predictive system can detect its own agency (Ye, 2026), but detecting agency does not explain durable, self-shaped behavior. We show that agency-gated slow credit -- a conjunctive term OwnAgencySalience driving a slow parameter update -- produces post-unload behavioral residue: on a spiking substrate (Nengo LIF/PES), a learned self-preserving choice survives episodic buffer removal (retained fraction 0.96, N=50) and collapses when the slow decoders are reset or the agency gate is removed. Reproducing the agency comparator and toggling only the slow-credit channel, we find a clean dissociation: at matched agency gain, durable behavior develops only when self-credit performs slow work (post-unload self-preservation 1.00 vs 0.00). The same dissociation holds in 24-dimensional partially-observed control (0.74 vs 0.00), and a plastic-work analysis shows that basin deformation equals net self-credit work. Across eight sequentially-learned tasks under exogenous interference, the multiplicative veto also prevents forgetting: it retains old tasks (final post-unload accuracy 0.88, forgetting 0.13) where additive pooling collapses to chance-level recall, the no-agency ablation falls below chance, and episodic/replay baselines stay near chance after unload -- all with no replay buffer and no task-boundary-dependent protection mechanism (N=50). We formalize the durable residue as an operational behavioral self and argue that self-caused credit doing slow work is a necessary building block for agents that develop a self. No claim of consciousness is made.

Group-based reinforcement learning effectively post-trains LLM agents for long-horizon, sparse-reward tasks by deriving step-level credit from trajectory outcomes. However, this ties a step's credit to its rollout's final outcome: semantically near-identical intermediate steps receive opposite credit depending on whether their trajectory eventually succeeded or failed. Such semantic credit inconsistency sends conflicting gradients to similar actions and wastes the partially-correct progress inside failed rollouts. Motivated by this, we propose Semantic Consistency Policy Optimization (SCPO), a value-free reward-shaping method that mitigates this inconsistency by recovering step-level credit from successful siblings in the same rollout group. Concretely, SCPO scores each failed step against a successful sibling and adds positive step-level credit for new progress along that sibling. On ALFWorld and WebShop, SCPO matches or exceeds strong group-based baselines, reaching 93.7+/-4.1 percent success on ALFWorld and 74.8+/-2.0 percent on WebShop at 1.5B parameters, with gains concentrated on the hardest multi-step tasks.

Stepwise group-based RL is an attractive way to train long-horizon LLM agents without a learned critic: it reuses multiple sampled rollouts to estimate local advantages. Its weakness is less visible but more fundamental: every group-relative estimator assumes that the steps it compares are equivalent for credit assignment. We show that current agentic variants violate this assumption through a state-action credit mismatch. The observation-hash partition is overly fine on the state side, creating singleton groups with zero step-level signal, while a single within-group mean is too coarse on the action side, mixing state-value estimation with action-specific credit. We introduce BiPACE (Bisimulation-Guided Policy Optimization with Action Counterfactual Estimation), a drop-in advantage estimator that fixes both sides without adding a critic, auxiliary loss, or extra rollouts. BiGPO clusters steps by cosine distance in the actor's own hidden-state geometry, an empirical policy-induced proxy for bisimulation that substantially lowers the singleton rate left by observation hashing. PACE then recenters returns within each behavioral cluster using action-conditioned peer baselines; its Q-style instance estimates a local Q(s,a)-V(s) nonparametrically. On ALFWorld/Qwen2.5-7B, BiPACE_Q raises overall validation success from GiGPO's 90.8 to $97.1\pm0.9$ over three seeds, and crosses the 95% threshold on every seed, which GiGPO never does within the same budget. On Qwen2.5-1.5B it reaches $93.5\pm1.2$ versus GiGPO's 86.7, and on WebShop and TextCraft it improves over GRPO and GiGPO at both model scales. The measured BiPACE-specific overhead is 11.3% of a single training-step wall time. Yet it changes the estimator's comparison unit from surface identity to approximate behavioral equivalence plus action-side counterfactuals. The code is available at https://github.com/TianxiangZhao/BiPACE.

Despite the success of deep learning, training deep networks in biologically plausible and hardware-efficient ways remains an open challenge. Feedback alignment (FA) methods address this by replacing backpropagation's symmetric backward weights with fixed random matrices, but their effectiveness depends critically on whether they can be accurately evaluated. The standard evaluation relies on two quantities: task accuracy and cosine similarity between the method's credit signal and the backpropagation gradient. We show that this reporting pair is insufficient by identifying two independent failure modes, both silent under current reporting: (1) measurement degeneracy, where the BP reference gradient collapses to the numerical floor in terminal-LayerNorm residual architectures, rendering cosine uninterpretable; and (2) aggregation collapse, where the aggregate cosine masks layerwise heterogeneity that concentrates credit at one end of the network. To address these limitations, we propose a diagnostic evaluation protocol based on three checks -- scale stability, reference validity, and depth utility -- together with per-layer rather than aggregate cosine reporting. Across multiple architectures and methods, the standard reporting pair gives no signal of failure in any audited case, while our protocol identifies all failures with wide calibration margins. The two failure modes are causally independent: a per-block scale penalty alleviates Mode 1 (residual scale explosion driving reference collapse) without affecting Mode 2 (cosine ranking that contradicts every functional metric we measured). Identifying these silent failures prevents researchers from building on non-functional credit assignment and provides actionable guidance for developing FA methods that genuinely train deep layers.

Reject inference methods are widely used to mitigate survival bias in credit scoring, yet their effectiveness remains poorly understood. We systematically evaluate several such methods and uncover a structural failure mode: in a natural retraining cycle, models whose accuracy improves while recall collapses create an illusion of improvement that leads practitioners to believe the system is getting better when, in fact, its rejection quality -- the ability to correctly screen out defaulters -- is deteriorating. We then propose a controlled exploration strategy that breaks the feedback loop without statistical assumptions: the lender deliberately approves a fraction of rejected applicants and observes their true outcomes. We show that accuracy and rejection quality give opposite recommendations on whether to explore: accuracy favors no exploration, while rejection quality improves with it, confirming that standard evaluation metrics are misleading under selection bias. Even minimal exploration rates (2--5%) prove sufficient in our experiments to diagnose the severity of the feedback loop at near-zero cost. Our findings are consistent across two machine learning methods and three real-world datasets, and suggest that standard evaluation protocols are inadequate for assessing models trained under survival bias.

Learned dynamics models often answer global physical questions, such as fault severity or impact stiffness, by pooling a per-step feature sequence into one readout vector. This sequence-to-global interface creates an under-studied temporal credit problem: with only trajectory-level supervision, a model can predict accurately in training conditions while reading from abundant smooth correlates rather than the brief physical events that determine the target. We call this failure temporal credit dilution. It is not exposed by the training loss and is not removed by standard physics-informed residuals, because the error lies in where the global readout assigns functional credit. We introduce Credit-in-Event, an interface-level probe for measuring how much pooled credit lands on event steps, and prove in closed form that a pooled linear reader routes credit to a spurious background channel as the event fraction shrinks. We then propose CREST, a training-free and label-free readout that estimates a transient event core from learned features and re-anchors the pooled representation through event-versus-rest contrast. Across simulated gear and impact systems, recurrent and attention encoders, and public bearing vibration data, CREST reduces out-of-distribution error while restoring event credit. Ablations show that stable-step selection and receptive-field shrinking fail, confirming that the gain comes from event-core credit re-anchoring rather than a generic locality or stability prior.

Long-horizon agents rely on memory mechanisms to compress interaction history, but optimizing memory writing faces a distinct credit assignment challenge: a memory update may be rewarded or penalized due to downstream tool failures, noisy observations, or reasoning errors rather than its own contribution. We propose HiMPO, a Hindsight-Informed Memory Policy Optimization framework for assigning less-entangled credit to memory-writing actions in long-horizon agents. HiMPO first estimates the local utility of a memory update by comparing the task-relevant information recoverable from the previous and updated memories under the same pre-write state. It then uses hindsight relevance as a bounded retrospective filter that attenuates memory credit when local utility is not supported by the target outcome. The resulting memory-specific advantage is applied only to memory tokens, while trajectory-level rewards optimize the rest of the agent's behavior. Across judge-based open-domain tasks and objective compressive-memory QA, HiMPO improves over strong memory-based and RL-based baselines while preserving compressed-context efficiency. Controlled interventions and live replay studies further show that HiMPO reduces blame leakage from tool-induced errors, assigns memory credit that aligns with the functional impact of memory writes, and remains robust to noisy training targets.

Supply Chain Finance (SCF) and LendTech platforms need credit scoring systems that respond to evolving transaction behavior, repayment delays, and active exposure. We propose TRUST-SCF, a transformer-based framework for transaction-level risk prediction and dynamic credit scoring. Each user history is represented as a sequence of transaction tokens containing utilization, repayment delay and transaction position. The main contributions are: (1) a financially aligned attention bias that combines utilization similarity and recency, enabling the model to compare repayment behavior under comparable exposure conditions; (2) continuous repayment-delay prediction in a log-transformed target space, reducing the influence of extreme delays while improving sensitivity to short-delay behavior and (3) a label-efficient credit-scoring pipeline in which the final credit score is not trained using any explicit external credit-score label, but is instead derived from predicted delay, potential risk over simulated utilization, actual unpaid exposure, and nonlinear calibration. Experiments on real transaction data from more than 300,000 transactions show that TRUST-SCF improves delay prediction over sequential baselines and produces scores that are strongly associated with future repayment behavior. These results suggest that TRUST-SCF is a practical framework for adaptive credit scoring and transaction-level risk mitigation in SCF and LendTech environments.

Long-horizon LLM agents require reinforcement learning methods that can assign credit to intermediate decisions under sparse and delayed rewards. Recent group-based methods such as GiGPO improve over GRPO by constructing step-level advantages at repeated anchor states. However, we show that such dense credit can be statistically unreliable: under limited rollouts, rare but lucky actions may receive overly large advantages, producing divergent anchor bias and late-stage training oscillation. We propose Evidence-Calibrated Policy Optimization (ECPO), a critic-free policy optimization algorithm that calibrates step-level credit before policy updates. ECPO combines Evidence-Calibrated Action Advantage, which groups rollouts by canonical actions and shrinks low-count estimates, with Variance-Gated Credit Weighting, which suppresses anchor states dominated by within-action noise. Experiments on ALFWorld and WebShop with Qwen2.5-1.5B/7B show that ECPO consistently outperforms strong baselines, improving GiGPO by +5.2/+7.3 success points on ALFWorld/WebShop with Qwen2.5-1.5B while adding only 0.1% additional advantage-computation overhead.

While token-level entropy is commonly recognized as effective for credit assignment in text-only reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), it remains unclear whether this mechanism still holds in visual reasoning. Our controlled study shows that this mechanism collapses in visual reasoning due to the omission of vision-sensitive tokens with naturally low entropy. Although existing multimodal RL methods increasingly acknowledge the importance of visual perception, they struggle to satisfy the inherent demand for interleaving precise perceptual grounding with semantic reasoning, either lacking systematic visual measurements or overlooking that token entropy primarily drives semantic exploration. To address this, we introduce VEPO (Vision-Entropy token-selection for Policy Optimization), an effective RL framework explicitly integrating visual sensitivity with token entropy via a principled multiplicative coupling, where VEPO redirects gradient credit toward tokens which are simultaneously visually grounded and highly informative. Extensive experiments demonstrate VEPO's leading performance, significantly outperforming the entropy-only baseline by 2.28 points at 7B-scale and 3.15 points at 3B-scale. Ablations further substantiate the soundness of our method.

While Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) empower Large Language Models to tackle complex reasoning tasks through collaborative interaction, optimizing their dynamics remains a formidable challenge due to the discrete, non-differentiable nature of the computation graph and the sparsity of global supervisory signals. Existing black-box optimizers struggle to attribute trajectory-level failure to specific local components, resulting in inefficient, high-variance exploration. We argue that tractable MAS optimization needs structural inductive biases to disentangle error signals. We propose temporal and structural credit assignment, which decomposes the objective along two axes: (i) temporal credit, using state-space bottlenecks to identify critical rounds, and (ii) structural credit, using stationary role policies to isolate agent contributions. Leveraging these decomposed signals, we introduce a discrete, verbalized block coordinate descent algorithm for iterative refinement. Rather than indiscriminate global updates, it alternates between optimizing role prompts and aggregation protocols, using LLM-generated "proxy gradients" to target only the identified weak links. Across diverse reasoning benchmarks, our approach substantially reduces query complexity while improving performance, providing a principled and interpretable path toward self-improving MAS.

Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has improved language models in domains such as mathematics and code, where correctness can be checked automatically. However, many important tasks are only partially verifiable: prompts contain multiple requirements, responses may satisfy some but not all of them, or no single reference answer might exist. We introduce Soft-RLVR, a framework for reinforcement learning from decomposed, learned verification signals. Soft-RLVR converts each prompt into a checklist of atomic requirements, scores candidate responses item by item with an LLM verifier, and trains on the resulting soft reward. Checklist-based rewards turn sparse pass/fail supervision into a denser partial-credit signal, but they also introduce a tradeoff: averaging item-level judgments can reduce verifier noise, while partial credit can reward incomplete responses. We formalize this tradeoff and identify conditions under which checklist-based verification gives a more reliable RL training signal than holistic verification. We further introduce Soft-SVeRL, a self-verifying variant of Soft-RLVR in which the policy also acts as the verifier. We show that self-verification is prone to reward inflation from overly permissive self-judgments, and that explicit stabilization is needed to prevent this collapse. In a controlled instruction-following setting with rule-based ground-truth evaluation, checklist-based Soft-RLVR improves IFEval by up to 11.1 points using only learned verifier rewards. Our experiments further show that verifier quality and checklist quality both affect downstream RL outcomes, and that explicit stabilization is essential for effective self-verification.

Retrieval is increasingly moving from one-shot matching toward interactive reasoning, where language agents iteratively inspect evidence, reformulate queries, and search again. Training such agents raises a credit-assignment challenge: executable actions such as queries or summaries can be directly evaluated by the retriever, while latent reasoning steps are not directly observable and only affect future executable actions. This asymmetry makes outcome-level reward assignment unreliable, as the same final reward may credit reasoning steps that did not actually shape retrieval success. We propose RICE-PO, a critic-free policy optimization framework that converts retrieval interactions into localized learning signals. RICE-PO selects high-uncertainty executable actions as anchors, evaluates local counterfactual branches using retrieval metrics, and propagates credit to latent reasoning steps only when reasoning-to-action influence is strong and future residual effects are stable. On BRIGHT and BEIR, RICE-PO consistently outperforms prompt-based agents and group-based RL baselines under the same retriever setting. These results show that the structure of agent-environment interaction itself can provide useful supervision for training reasoning-based retrieval agents.

Steerable pluralism requires a model to faithfully represent one specified perspective. Organizations are a natural setting for this demand, since they deploy LLMs to make decisions that must reflect their own policy. Yet, most existing work fixes that perspective at the level of individuals or demographic groups. We rely on a decision-policy capturing method to measure process alignment in organizational settings, assessing whether an LLM faithfully reproduces the organization's decision policy rather than merely reaching the same conclusions. We find heterogeneity along two axes. Across models, baseline alignment varies strongly and tracks neither pricing nor general benchmark performance. Across organizations, the structure of alignment changes. In ECHR Article 6 decisions, process alignment predicts output accuracy ($r = 0.85$, $p < .001$), and making the organization's past decision policy explicit improves poorly aligned models. In consumer credit decisions, process alignment is low overall but varies more than output accuracy, and the models resist adopting the organization's weighting of protected attributes. Because historical credit decisions encode potentially discriminatory patterns, higher alignment there is not always desirable. Process-level measurement is therefore necessary, and depending on whether the target policy is normatively desirable, the same procedure can calibrate or audit a model. Deciding which policy to align to, and whether higher alignment is feasible or desirable, makes organizational alignment a pluralistic problem in its own right.

Deploying LLMs in multi-turn dialogues facilitates jailbreak attacks that distribute harmful intent across seemingly benign turns. Recent training-based multi-turn jailbreak methods learn long-horizon attack strategies from interaction feedback, but often rely on coarse trajectory-level outcome signals that broadcast uniformly to every turn. However, we find that turn-level contributions in multi-turn jailbreaking are non-uniform, phase-dependent, and target-specific. Such coarse outcome supervision induces a credit assignment problem, leading to over-rewarding redundant turns in successful trajectories and under-crediting useful intermediate turns in failed ones. To address this, we propose TRACE, a turn-aware credit assignment framework for reinforcement learning (RL)-based multi-turn jailbreaking. For successful trajectories, TRACE estimates turn-level contributions via leave-one-turn-out semantic masking; for failed ones, TRACE assigns penalties based on prompt harmfulness and semantic relevance, with an additional local refusal-aware penalty. Furthermore, we reuse the attack-side credit signal for multi-turn defense alignment. Extensive experiments on open-source and closed-source targets show that TRACE achieves strong overall performance in effectiveness, transferability, and efficiency, yielding about a 25% relative improvement in attack success rate over the strongest RL baseline while also improving the safety-utility balance when reused for defense alignment.

Command line interface (CLI) agents are emerging as a practical paradigm for agent-computer interaction over evolving filesystems, executable command line programs, and online execution feedback. Recent work has used reinforcement learning (RL) to learn these interaction abilities from verifiable task feedback, yet few methods exploit the native structured attributes of CLI actions as learning signals. Beyond this underused action structure, CLI learning also couples two bottlenecks for coding agents. First, the agent must identify task-relevant evidence in a large codebase from partial observations. Second, sparse terminal rewards must be assigned to the actions that shape a long multi-turn trajectory. We study these bottlenecks through shell-driven information extraction and file editing tasks. For selective observation, we introduce $σ$-Reveal, an inference-time mechanism that selects token-budgeted context for the same CLI. For credit assignment, we propose Action Advantage Assignment ($\mathrm{A}^3$), a native agentic RL method that preserves the algorithmic complexity of standard agentic RL. $\mathrm{A}^3$ constructs turn-level advantages from episode-level relative feedback, abstract syntax tree (AST) based action sub-chain residuals, and tree-level trajectory margins. To further evaluate this problem setting, we construct ShellOps, a verifiable dataset suite covering CLI tasks in repository environments.

Memory systems are widely adopted to enhance LLMs for long-horizon tasks, and are commonly organized as multi-agent pipelines with memory building, summarizing, and retrieval agents. To empower this system, existing RL-based methods either apply final downstream task rewards (e.g., QA accuracy) for all agents uniformly, which are coarse and ambiguous, or design task-specific rewards for agents on different subtasks, which require costly annotations (e.g., key evidence) and are difficult to define reliably. To address these limitations, we propose Tree-based Credit Assignment for Multi-Agent Memory Systems (TreeMem), which derives agent-specific credit from the final reward without task-specific annotations. Specifically, TreeMem extends the multi-agent pipeline (builder--summarizer--retrieval) into a tree structure, where each agent's outputs are expanded into multiple subsequent branches. The contribution of each agent is estimated via Monte Carlo averaging over its subsequent branches, capturing how intermediate agent actions may influence the final reward. This converts the coarse final reward into agent-specific optimization signals. These signals are then used to update all agent policies simultaneously, helping heterogeneous agents specialize effectively. Experiments on long-horizon benchmarks show that TreeMem improves memory system performance over strong baselines, validating the effectiveness of tree-structured credit assignment for the multi-agent memory system.

Fraud can pose a challenge in many resource allocation domains, including social service delivery and credit provision. For example, agents may misreport private information in order to gain benefits or access to credit. To mitigate this, a principal can design strategic audits to verify claims and penalize misreporting. In this paper, we introduce a general model of audit policy design as a principal-agent game with multiple agents, where the principal commits to an audit policy, and agents collectively choose an equilibrium that minimizes the principal's utility. We examine both adaptive and non-adaptive settings, depending on whether the principal's policy can be responsive to the distribution of agent reports. Our work provides efficient algorithms for computing optimal audit policies in both settings and extends these results to a setting with limited audit budgets.

Recent advancements in financial problem-solving have leveraged LLMs and agent-based systems, with a primary focus on trading and financial modeling. However, credit assessment remains an underexplored challenge, traditionally dependent on rule-based methods and statistical models. In this paper, we introduce MASCA, an LLM-driven multi-agent system designed to enhance credit evaluation by mirroring real-world decision-making processes. The framework employs a layered architecture where specialized LLM-based agents collaboratively tackle sub-tasks. Additionally, we integrate contrastive learning for risk and reward assessment to optimize decision-making. We further present a signaling game theory perspective on hierarchical multi-agent systems, offering theoretical insights into their structure and interactions. Our paper also includes a detailed bias analysis in credit assessment, addressing fairness concerns. Experimental results demonstrate that MASCA outperforms baseline approaches, highlighting the effectiveness of hierarchical LLM-based multi-agent systems in financial applications, particularly in credit scoring.

Credit scoring has been catalogued by the European Commission and the Executive Office of the US President as a high-risk classification task, in light of the potential harms of making loan approval decisions based on models that would be biased against certain groups. To address this concern, recent credit scoring research has considered a range of fairness-enhancing techniques put forward by the machine learning community to reduce bias and unfair treatment in classification systems. While the definition of fairness or the approach they follow to impose it may vary, most of these techniques, however, disregard the robustness of the results. This can create situations where unfair treatment is effectively corrected in the training set, but when producing out-of-distribution classifications, unfair treatment is incurred again. Instead, in this paper, we will investigate how to apply Distributionally Robust Optimisation (DRO) methods to credit scoring, thereby empirically evaluating how they perform in terms of fairness, ability to classify correctly, and the robustness of the solution against changes in the marginal proportions. In so doing, we find DRO methods to provide a substantial improvement in terms of fairness, with almost no loss in predictive performance. These results thus indicate that DRO can improve fairness in credit scoring, provided that further advances are made in efficiently implementing these systems. In addition, our analysis suggests that many of the commonly used fairness metrics are not ideally suited to the credit scoring setting, as they evaluate performance at a single classification threshold.