论文

FOCUS:用主动 critic 学习解决长程智能体信用分配问题

FOCUS: Active Critic Learning for Long-Horizon Language Model Agents

精选理由

一个叫 FOCUS 的 RL 方法,专治长程智能体训练里早期动作拿不到奖励的老问题,实测比 GRPO 和 VinePPO 高好几个点。

长程语言模型智能体的稀疏结果奖励难以给早期动作分配信用,而传统 critic 的中间状态估值不准确,用重复续写样本估计中间值的成本也很高。论文提出 FOCUS,通过选择性分支让 rollout 控制器从最能降低 critic 估计误差的状态采样续写,实现主动学习,并用 TD(λ) 优势对连续状态间的片段打分。在 Qwen3.5-9B 规模、每步生成预算匹配的条件下,FOCUS 在 BrowseComp-Plus 上比最强基线(GRPO 和 VinePPO)高 7.2 个百分点(55.4 vs 48.2),在 DeonticBench 上高 4.1 个百分点(56.5 vs 52.4),测试覆盖法律推理、深度搜索和代码定位基准。方法还提供模块化上下文管理接口,将上下文管理与 rollout 分配解耦。

原文 · arXiv cs.LG

FOCUS: Active Critic Learning for Long-Horizon Language Model Agents

Sparse outcome rewards make it difficult for long-horizon language-model agents to assign credit to earlier actions. Learned critics provide value estimates for intermediate states, but these estimates can be inaccurate, while estimating intermediate values with repetitive continuation samples from points within a trajectory incurs substantial costs. To mitigate these issues, we introduce FOCUS, an RL method that uses selective branching to help the critic network learn its value estimator. The rollout controller facilitates active learning for the critic by sampling continuations from states that are expected to most reduce the critic's estimation error. These refined value estimates then score the segment between consecutive states with a TD($λ$) advantage, while the sampled evidence supplies training targets for the critic. FOCUS supports long-horizon agentic reinforcement learning through a modular context-management interface that decouples context management from rollout allocation. Our experiments show that using compaction-induced segment boundaries for value estimation and credit assignment, FOCUS outperforms GRPO and VinePPO with matched per-step generation budgets on legal reasoning, deep search, and code localization benchmarks, improving held-out accuracy at Qwen3.5-9B scale by 7.2 points over the strongest baseline on BrowseComp-Plus (55.4 vs. 48.2) and by 4.1 points on DeonticBench (56.5 vs. 52.4).