跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2605.27788 · v2

Knowing When to Ask: Segment-Level Credit Assignment for LLM Tool Use

首次提交 2026-05-27 08:11
版本更新 2026-11-07 10:14
雷达观测 2026-11-10 10:11
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Humans know when to reach for help e.g. $347 \times 28$ warrants a calculator while $2+2$ does not. Language models do not. Prompt-based approaches can instruct a model when to invoke tools, but this scaffolding does not teach it to recognize the boundary of its own knowledge. RL approaches that assign a single outcome reward to the whole trajectory fare no better: trajectory-level credit cannot isolate which tool call in a successful episode actually helped, nor penalize unnecessary calls. We propose CARL (Competence-Aware Reinforcement Learning), which trains a critic on the model's own rollouts to learn where parametric knowledge suffices and where it needs external help. By decomposing each rollout at natural tool-use boundaries (e.g., code fence delimiters and context block transitions), CARL assigns independent credit to each segment from a single binary outcome, without external judges or step-level annotations. As a result, erroneous tool calls, incorrect extractions, and unnecessary calls each receive appropriately signed advantages. The trained critic captures the model's domain competence: it separates parametrically solvable from tool-dependent questions with AUC 0.93 at 7B. On five benchmarks spanning arithmetic, multi-hop factual QA, and numerical reasoning over financial tables, CARL improves average exact-match accuracy on the three search benchmarks by 6.7 points at 7B and 9.6 points at 3B over the best RL baseline, with the largest gain (+8.3 EM at 7B, +12.5 EM at 3B) on MuSiQue. At 7B, CARL has a 53% lower tool-use rate than Search-R1 PPO on parametrically answerable questions while remaining 9.8 EM points more accurate on them. Gains are largest at small scale: the 3B improvement is $1.4\times$ the 7B improvement, suggesting that knowing when to ask disproportionately benefits models with smaller parametric memory.

作者备注:Accepted at NeurIPS 2026 (main track, spotlight). 44 pages including appendices. OpenReview: https://openreview.net/forum?id=rzZuYaw8zp

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v2 · 2026-11-07 10:14 · 最新观测版本

Knowing When to Ask: Segment-Level Credit Assignment for LLM Tool Use

Humans know when to reach for help e.g. $347 \times 28$ warrants a calculator while $2+2$ does not. Language models do not. Prompt-based approaches can instruct a model when to invoke tools, but this scaffolding does not teach it to recognize the boundary of its own knowledge. RL approaches that assign a single outcome reward to the whole trajectory fare no better: trajectory-level credit cannot isolate which tool call in a successful episode actually helped, nor penalize unnecessary calls. We propose CARL (Competence-Aware Reinforcement Learning), which trains a critic on the model's own rollouts to learn where parametric knowledge suffices and where it needs external help. By decomposing each rollout at natural tool-use boundaries (e.g., code fence delimiters and context block transitions), CARL assigns independent credit to each segment from a single binary outcome, without external judges or step-level annotations. As a result, erroneous tool calls, incorrect extractions, and unnecessary calls each receive appropriately signed advantages. The trained critic captures the model's domain competence: it separates parametrically solvable from tool-dependent questions with AUC 0.93 at 7B. On five benchmarks spanning arithmetic, multi-hop factual QA, and numerical reasoning over financial tables, CARL improves average exact-match accuracy on the three search benchmarks by 6.7 points at 7B and 9.6 points at 3B over the best RL baseline, with the largest gain (+8.3 EM at 7B, +12.5 EM at 3B) on MuSiQue. At 7B, CARL has a 53% lower tool-use rate than Search-R1 PPO on parametrically answerable questions while remaining 9.8 EM points more accurate on them. Gains are largest at small scale: the 3B improvement is $1.4\times$ the 7B improvement, suggesting that knowing when to ask disproportionately benefits models with smaller parametric memory.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗