🛰️ Daily AI Frontier
‹ back to 2026-09-03

Coverage, Not Targeting: A Structural Regime in Multi-Turn Agent Credit Assignment

Research LLM Agents

Ranking

Overall 81
Content 100
Popularity 37

Observed public metrics from 1 member.

Merged summary

TL;DR - This paper argues that when verifiers reveal little about which steps in a multi-turn agent trajectory were correct, broad reward coverage matters more than targeting selected turns. Uniform credit redistribution consistently outperformed concentrated schemes across several agent benchmarks and model families.

  • Defines verifier information density, (V_d=k/C), as the fraction of a causal chain whose per-turn correctness is exposed by the verifier.
  • Terminal-state verification produced low information density—about 0.15 on (\tau^2)-bench and 0.4 on BFCL V3—while the estimated targeting crossover was roughly 0.8.
  • Uniform dense rewards beat sparse outcomes and targeted or randomly concentrated alternatives; shuffled controls were also consistently harmful.
  • A breadth sweep showed a monotonic improvement as more of the causal chain received credit, with the deficit disappearing only at full coverage.

Sources (1)

Coverage, Not Targeting: A Structural Regime in Multi-Turn Agent Credit Assignment

arXiv cs.LG Chenyu Zhou, Qiliang Jiang, Shuning Wu, Xu Zhou 2026-09-02 arXiv:2609.02417
Public signals Semantic Scholar citations 0 · Semantic Scholar influential citations 0
Providers: Hugging Face · N/A OpenAlex · N/A Publisher · N/A Semantic Scholar · Citations 0 · Influential citations 0 X · N/A Fetched 2026-09-25 14:24:36.336727 UTC

TL;DR - This paper argues that when verifiers reveal little about which steps in a multi-turn agent trajectory were correct, broad reward coverage matters more than targeting selected turns. Uniform credit redistribution consistently outperformed concentrated schemes across several agent benchmarks and model families.

  • Defines verifier information density, (V_d=k/C), as the fraction of a causal chain whose per-turn correctness is exposed by the verifier.
  • Terminal-state verification produced low information density—about 0.15 on (\tau^2)-bench and 0.4 on BFCL V3—while the estimated targeting crossover was roughly 0.8.
  • Uniform dense rewards beat sparse outcomes and targeted or randomly concentrated alternatives; shuffled controls were also consistently harmful.
  • A breadth sweep showed a monotonic improvement as more of the causal chain received credit, with the deficit disappearing only at full coverage.
item →