arXiv preprint ·
When Does Action Credit Need Updating?
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Tool-using agents are continually updated with new interaction data. After each policy update, however, previously estimated action credits may become stale. Recomputing them from scratch can require many additional tool calls and environment interactions, making repeated updates increasingly expensive. We ask a simple question: when does historical action credit actually need to be updated? Our key observation is that a change in action value does not necessarily imply a change in the decision. Historical credit can still be useful as long as policy-induced drift is too small to overturn the existing action ranking. Building on this idea, we introduce pairwise branch sensitivity to capture how strongly a policy update affects the downstream regions that distinguish two candidate actions. We then derive a first-order anchored credit-transport estimator that updates historical credit using old interventional trajectories, and propose a Decision-Sufficient Credit Gate (DSC-Gate) that chooses whether to reuse, transport, or resample credit. Experiments show that branch sensitivity explains credit drift substantially better than global policy distance. With sufficient historical data, credit transport reduces estimation error, while its benefit to decision making is concentrated on updates that affect action-distinguishing branches. On a fully independent test set, DSC-Gate changes mean regret by only +0.00004 relative to a gap-based gate while reducing mean new tool steps from 472 to 286, a 39.4% reduction. We observe the same pattern after a real tool-agent parameter update. Overall, our results show that agents do not need to recompute action credit after every policy update: much of the historical evidence can be reused or cheaply corrected, reducing the additional interaction required to keep action decisions up to date.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
Back to the Definition: Estimating Step-Level Advantages via Trajectory Graphs for Agentic Reinforcement Learning
MARCEDES: Score-based causal discovery under non-Gaussianity with continuous optimization
Causal Retention in Interactive Agents: Interface Factorization and Selective Adaptation
Personalised federated learning for Riemannian and Euclidean EEG decoding
Design-Ignoring versus Design-Respecting World Models for Epidemiology
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.