TRACE: Training Reasoning Agents for Causal Exploration with Synthesized Rewards

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.10315v1
• Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2026 15:21:47 GMT
• Title: TRACE: Training Reasoning Agents for Causal Exploration with Synthesized Rewards
• Abstract summary: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has advanced language-model reasoning in domains such as mathematics and code.<n>We ask whether this asymmetry of verification can be engineered.<n>We instantiate this approach in TRACE, a digital-advertising diagnostic environment with 12 root causes and fine-grained segment attribution.
• Score: 15.908097225313968
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has advanced language-model reasoning in domains such as mathematics and code, where objective answers are inexpensive to check. Diagnostic reasoning over complex data lacks this advantage: establishing the true cause of an anomaly often requires costly expert investigation and may remain ambiguous after the fact. We ask whether this asymmetry of verification can instead be engineered. We sample an intervention, inject it into a controlled simulator, and generate the observations it would produce. The hidden intervention provides an oracle label and objective reward, while the agent must still investigate noisy, confounded, and distributed evidence. We instantiate this approach in TRACE, a digital-advertising diagnostic environment with 12 root causes and fine-grained segment attribution. Agents investigate each episode using Python and SQL and must identify both the root cause and, when applicable, the affected segment assignment. On a held-out 235-episode test set, the strongest prompted baseline, Claude Opus 5, reaches 0.686 FullAttr@1. Supervised fine-tuning raises Qwen3.5-35B-A3B from 0.159 to 0.637, and subsequent RL with synthesized rewards reaches 0.757, outperforming all evaluated prompted baselines, including frontier closed-source models and a prompted Qwen3.5-122B-A10B model. The resulting policy also uses substantially fewer tool calls than the prompted 35B base. These results provide evidence that access to a scalable, objective training signal can be a more important constraint than model scale alone. More broadly, simulation-based verification can make otherwise ambiguous diagnostic reasoning tasks amenable to scalable reinforcement learning.

Related papers

• AREX: Towards a Recursively Self-Improving Agent for Deep Research [75.96468303743958]
  We introduce AREX, a family of Recursively Self-Improving deep research agents.<n>AREX alternates between an inner research loop that gathers evidence and constructs a provisional answer.<n>We train AREX on verified synthetic tasks and high-quality trajectories through agentic mid-training and long-horizon reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-23T16:05:46Z)
• When RLVR Shrinks the Reasoning Boundary: Diagnosing Pass@k Inversion [0.0]
  Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) can improve one-sample accuracy while making a model worse under repeated sampling.<n>We study this pass@k inversion: after training, the policy may solve fewer distinct problems than its base model at large $k$.<n>The failure concentrates on boundary prompts, where the base model contains rare correct trajectories that are recoverable by sampling but too sparse to reliably appear in finite RLVR rollout groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-12T17:17:18Z)
• Perception, Verdict, and Evolution: Hindsight-Driven Self-Refining Forensics Agent for AI-Generated Image Detection [80.15317858033534]
  ForeAgent is an agentic forensics framework for AI-generated image detection with iterative self-evolution.<n>ForeAgent achieves state-of-the-art performance on the Chameleon benchmark, reaching 82.18% accuracy.<n>ForeAgent produces more consistent and causally grounded reasoning compared to GPT-5 and GPT-5-mini.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-25T02:59:33Z)
• ChromaFlow: A Negative Ablation Study of Orchestration Overhead in Tool-Augmented Agent Evaluation [0.0]
  This report presents a tool-augmented autonomous reasoning framework built around planner-directed execution, specialized tool use, and telemetry-driven evaluation.<n>We analyze ChromaFlow on GAIA 2023 Level-1 validation tasks under clean evaluation constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T20:40:37Z)
• SAAG: Structured Agent Assessment and Grounding [13.62148061055744]
  We propose a cascaded diagnostic framework that decomposes agent-calling evaluation into three sequential stages.<n>We evaluate this framework on a benchmark derived from Glaive's function-calling dataset across registry sizes of 5, 10, and 15 agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-30T19:33:58Z)
• AEGIS: From Clues to Verdicts -- Graph-Guided Deep Vulnerability Reasoning via Dialectics and Meta-Auditing [9.271196825503417]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted for vulnerability detection, yet their reasoning remains fundamentally unsound.<n>We present AEGIS, a novel multi-agent framework that shifts detection from ungrounded speculation to forensic verification over a closed factual substrate.<n>It reduces the false positive rate by up to 54.40% compared to leading baselines, at an average cost of $0.09 per sample without any task-specific training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-21T04:12:04Z)
• When Small Models Are Right for Wrong Reasons: Process Verification for Trustworthy Agents [0.0]
  We reveal a critical reliability crisis: 50-69% of correct answers from small language models contain fundamentally flawed reasoning.<n>We introduce the Reasoning Integrity Score (RIS), a process-based metric validated with substantial inter-rater agreement.<n>We show RAG succeeds by grounding calculations in external evidence, reducing errors by 7.6%, while meta-cognition amplifies confusion without sufficient model capacity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-01T23:54:15Z)
• Eigen-1: Adaptive Multi-Agent Refinement with Monitor-Based RAG for Scientific Reasoning [53.45095336430027]
  We develop a unified framework that combines implicit retrieval and structured collaboration.<n>On Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) Bio/Chem Gold, our framework achieves 48.3% accuracy.<n>Results on SuperGPQA and TRQA confirm robustness across domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T14:05:55Z)
• ReasonMed: A 370K Multi-Agent Generated Dataset for Advancing Medical Reasoning [54.30630356786752]
  ReasonMed is the largest medical reasoning dataset to date, with 370k high-quality examples.<n>It is built through a multi-agent generation, verification, and refinement process.<n>Using ReasonMed, we find that integrating detailed CoT reasoning with concise answer summaries yields the most robust fine-tuning results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T08:36:55Z)
• SEAL: Steerable Reasoning Calibration of Large Language Models for Free [58.931194824519935]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated compelling capabilities for complex reasoning tasks via the extended chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning mechanism.<n>Recent studies reveal substantial redundancy in the CoT reasoning traces, which negatively impacts model performance.<n>We introduce SEAL, a training-free approach that seamlessly calibrates the CoT process, improving accuracy while demonstrating significant efficiency gains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T02:42:07Z)
• Exploring the Limit of Outcome Reward for Learning Mathematical Reasoning [65.2421542320293]
  Reasoning abilities are crucial components of general intelligence.<n>Recent advances by proprietary companies, such as o-series models of OpenAI, have made remarkable progress on reasoning tasks.<n>This paper proposes a new RL framework, termed OREAL, to pursue the performance limit that can be achieved through textbfOutcome textbfREwtextbfArd-based reinforcement textbfLearning for mathematical reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T18:57:29Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.