Knowing When to Ask: Segment-Level Credit Assignment for LLM Tool Use
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Humans know when to reach for help e.g. 347 × 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 exact-match accuracy by 6.7 points at 7B and 9.7 points at 3B over the best RL baseline, with the largest gain (+8.3 EM at 7B, +9.0 EM at 3B) on Musique. The model issues 53% fewer tool calls on parametrically answerable questions while remaining ~10 EM points more accurate on them. Gains are largest at small scale: the 3B improvement is 1.4× the 7B improvement, suggesting that knowing when to ask disproportionately benefits models with smaller parametric memory.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 May 2026.
Builds on
20 of 27 references.
References · 20
- 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 14,441
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2018HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answeringcited by 3,686
- 2025DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scalecited by 2,678
- 2015High-Dimensional Continuous Control Using Generalized Advantage Estimationcited by 1,916
- 2020Constructing A Multi-hop QA Dataset for Comprehensive Evaluation of Reasoning Stepscited by 1,259
- 2021MuSiQue: Multihop Questions via Single-hop Question Compositioncited by 893
- 2021FinQA: A Dataset of Numerical Reasoning over Financial Datacited by 552
- 2025ToolRL: Reward is All Tool Learning Needscited by 342
- 2024Rewarding Progress: Scaling Automated Process Verifiers for LLM Reasoningcited by 267
- 2023Secrets of RLHF in Large Language Models Part I: PPOcited by 226
8 more
- 2025ToRL: Scaling Tool-Integrated RLcited by 166
- 2018RUDDER: Return Decomposition for Delayed Rewardscited by 162
- 2025ReSearch: Learning to Reason with Search for LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 152
- 2025Segment Policy Optimization: Effective Segment-Level Credit Assignment in RL for Large Language Modelscited by 75
- 2025R3-RAG: Learning Step-by-Step Reasoning and Retrieval for LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 19
- 2025Agent-as-Tool: A Study on the Hierarchical Decision Making with Reinforcement Learningcited by 9
- 2026Execution-Grounded Credit Assignment for GRPO in Code Generationcited by 5
- 2026Learning to Configure Agentic AI Systemscited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.