All papersReasoning & AgentsPhilo Labs

When Fine-Grained Credit Assignment Helps and Hurts: Multimodal Agentic Reinforcement Learning through Video Editing

/ Paper arXiv 2610.35497

Key numbers

45.4%with a 45.4% relative gain over outcome-only GRPO on tasks averaging more than 60 turns under…
10.4%with decaying process rewards yielding at most a 10.4% relative gain

From the paperCopied from the abstract, not written by AI.

Abstract

From the paperThe authors' own words.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has shown promise for training multimodal agents to reason and use tools. However, it remains unclear when fine-grained credit assignment improves learning and when it fails to improve task performance. Video editing provides a useful testbed for this question, combining multimodal perception, long-horizon planning, and tool use with delayed outcome feedback. We construct four movie-trailer editing task types---Content Selection, Narrative Sequencing, Rough Cut, and Fine Cut---that reflect real-world editing workflows and span different levels of task complexity and interaction horizon. Decaying process rewards provides the largest benefit on Fine Cut, with a 45.4% relative gain over outcome-only GRPO on tasks averaging more than 60 turns under outcome-only GRPO. On the three shorter-horizon task types averaging 30--40 turns under the same baseline, outcome-only GRPO remains competitive, with decaying process rewards yielding at most a 10.4% relative gain. Process rewards from an LLM judge initially improve tool use and encourage visual inspection. As training progresses, however, GRPO+PRM with a fixed process-reward weight increasingly exhibits excessive reasoning and redundant tool calls: process rewards continue to rise while task completion rates and outcome scores decline. Decaying the process-reward weight to zero mitigates this reward-hacking behavior while preserving the early gains. Despite dense token-level supervision, on-policy self-distillation (OPSD) yields little improvement or substantial degradation and is highly sensitive to the choice of privileged information. Our analysis reveals differences in teacher--student disagreement and gradient magnitudes, and suggests possible dilution of informative signals over long trajectories.

From the full paper

From the paperCopied from the paper itself by our code.

Reading the paper on arXiv…

Where it fits

The most cited papers it builds on, and the papers that build on it.

/ Builds on 3 most cited

  1. 202410.9k citedDeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models ↗
  2. 20221.5k citedScaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization ↗
  3. 2025614 citedGroup-in-Group Policy Optimization for LLM Agent Training ↗

/ Built on by None yet

No papers cite it yet. We check again every week.

From Semantic Scholar, updated weekly.

Try it

Code, models and demos that use this paper.

Models:
leizhao7/VideoEdit-Qwen3.6-35B-A3B ↗2 models on Hugging Face

Ask this paper

/ Ask a questionAnswers come from the full paper and name the section

    / Your notes

    Select text in the abstract to highlight it or add a note. They stay in this browser.

      Read the PDF