Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) has emerged as a promising critic-free reinforcement learning paradigm for reasoning tasks. However, standard GRPO employs a coarse-grained credit assignment mechanism that propagates group-level rewards uniformly to to every token in a sequence, neglecting the varying contribution of individual reasoning steps. We address this limitation by introducing Outcome-grounded Advantage Reshaping (OAR), a fine-grained credit assignment mechanism that redistributes advantages based on how much each token influences the model’s final answer. We instantiate OAR via two complementary strategies: (1) OAR-P, which estimates outcome sensitivity through counterfactual token perturbations, serving as a high-fidelity attribution signal; (2) OAR-G, which uses an input-gradient sensitivity proxy to approximate the influence signal with a single backward pass. These importance signals are integrated with a conservative Bi-Level advantage reshaping scheme that suppresses low-impact tokens and boosts pivotal ones while preserving the overall advantage mass. Empirical results on extensive mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that while OAR-P sets the performance upper bound, OAR-G achieves comparable gains with negligible computational overhead, both significantly outperforming a strong GRPO baseline, pushing the boundaries of critic-free LLM reasoning.

Reinforcement learning for open-ended text generation is constrained by the lack of verifiable rewards, necessitating reliance on judge models that require either annotated data or powerful closed-source models. Inspired by recent work on unsupervised reinforcement learning for mathematical reasoning using confidence-based endogenous rewards, we investigate whether this principle can be adapted to open-ended writing tasks. We find that directly applying confidence rewards leads to Triviality Bias: the policy collapses toward high-probability outputs, reducing diversity and meaningful content. We propose TCER (Triviality Corrected Endogenous Reward), which addresses this bias by rewarding the relative information gain between a specialist policy and a generalist reference policy, modulated by a probability-dependent correction mechanism. Across multiple writing benchmarks and model architectures, TCER achieves consistent improvements without external supervision. Furthermore, TCER also transfers effectively to mathematical reasoning, validating the generality of our approach across different generation tasks.

Although the effectiveness of Large Language Models as judges has been validated, their performance remains limited in open-ended tasks, particularly in story evaluation. Accurate story evaluation is crucial not only for assisting human quality judgment but also for providing reward signals to guide story generation. However, existing methods face a dilemma: prompt engineering for closed-source models suffers from poor adaptability, while fine-tuning approaches for open-source models lack the reasoning capabilities essential for story evaluation. To address this, we propose the Self-Evolving Pairwise Reasoning (EvolvR) framework. Grounded in pairwise comparison, the framework first self-synthesizes score-aligned Chain-of-Thought (CoT) data via a multi-persona strategy. To ensure data quality, these raw CoTs undergo a self-filtering process, utilizing multi-agents to guarantee their logical rigor and robustness. Finally, the evaluator trained on the refined data is deployed as a reward model to guide the story generation task. Experimental results demonstrate that our framework achieves state-of-the-art performance on three evaluation benchmarks including StoryER, HANNA and OpenMEVA. Furthermore, when served as a reward model, it enhances the quality of generated stories, thereby validating the superiority of our self-evolving approach.