Reach or Solve? Attributing Agentic RL Gains with Checkpoint Handoffs

Counts differ because each database indexes a different set of publications. We treat OpenAlex as the canonical count; Google Scholar is not shown (no API, and crawling it violates its ToS).

Reinforcement learning now trains language-model agents that act over dozens of steps in live environments. The gains are large, and they are read as better decision-making. An agent in a closed loop writes its own inputs. Each observation follows from its own earlier actions, so the states it meets late in an episode are partly of its own making. An SFT checkpoint and an RL checkpoint are then scored from different states, even on identical tasks. Endpoint success mixes two changes: where the agent arrives, and what it does once it is there. Restricting the comparison to states both policies reach does not separate them. That restriction selects on an outcome, and in our data it flips the sign of the effect. We introduce checkpoint handoff, an evaluation protocol that clones a state one released checkpoint reached and hands it to another, with no retraining. Crossing a reacher role and a solver role over SFT and RL splits an endpoint gain into REACH and SOLVE. REACH is how often a policy arrives at a state the environment confirms is a fixed number of actions from success. SOLVE is how often it finishes from an identical cloned state. Across two benchmarks and two independently released pipelines, the reacher by solver interaction is positive in all five conditions. An RL history is worth more to an RL solver than the same history is to an SFT solver. On ALFWorld, RL improves both terms, and the SFT solver never succeeds where the RL solver fails. Independent REACH and SOLVE gaps predict the aggregate interaction. Handoff asks only that one checkpoint's history can be replayed under another, so long-horizon evaluation can report arrival and completion beside endpoint success.