Critic-free group-based reinforcement learning has become a scalable approach for post-training large language models. However, most existing methods allocate the same number of rollouts to every task and trajectory state, even though some rollouts provide much more useful learning signals than others. Recent work has started to treat rollout generation as an adaptive decision, but two important limitations remain. First, intervention strategies are often based on fixed heuristics and therefore cannot adjust as the policy changes during training. Second, these methods usually decide only how many rollouts to generate, without explicitly controlling where and how to intervene. To address these limitations, we propose Recoverability-Aware Intervention Learning (RAIL), a training-time framework that learns how to generate rollouts based on the improvement produced by each intervention. RAIL models intervention selection as an online contextual-bandit problem and trains a recoverability controller using intervention traces collected through a shadow-to-live procedure. This allows the controller to keep learning while the underlying policy evolves. We evaluate RAIL in terms of effectiveness, adaptivity, expressiveness, and efficiency. Across multiple settings, RAIL consistently improves performance under limited rollout budgets. These results show that recoverability-aware intervention provides a principled way to generate more informative and less redundant rollouts, leading to stronger learning signals during post-training.
Zheyuan Zhang, Man-Qing Mao, Hong Wang et al.· 0 citations
Multi-agent systems built from large language models are deployed widely, yet how much performance is lost when two LLMs must coordinate rather than act alone remains unclear. We formulate the collaboration tax as the team-decentralisation loss of a two-player cooperative game with private information, with two propositions characterising its sign and its equivalence to a max-superadditivity violation. We operationalise this definition on 32 solo-tractable tasks grouped by source of grounding friction and measure it on 11 models from 7 providers. The tax is structured along two no-exception axes: a category ordering across every model and a monotonic decrease with capability. The proximate mechanism is not a reasoning deficit but a four-stage conversational cascade in which agents make ungrounded claims, fail to query the partner, skip integrating both views, and accept the answer without re-derivation. The tax is mechanically predictable from conversation features and partly tractable: a prompt intervention targeting all four stages closes a substantial fraction of the gap, with the dominant bottleneck differing across categories. In heterogeneous pairs the tax is pulled toward the stronger partner rather than the additive midpoint, empirically realising the max-superadditivity violation predicted by our framework. Together these results recast collaboration in LLM systems as a measurable, predictable, and partly tractable cost.
Weixiang Sun, Zehong Wang, Hong Huang et al.· 0 citations
