Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 26, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Sparse outcome rewards make it difficult for long-horizon language-model agents to assign credit to earlier actions. Learned critics provide value estimates for intermediate states, but these estimates can be inaccurate, while estimating intermediate values with repetitive continuation samples from points within a trajectory incurs substantial costs. To mitigate these issues, we introduce FOCUS, an RL method that uses selective branching to help the critic network learn its value estimator. The rollout controller facilitates active learning for the critic by sampling continuations from states that are expected to most reduce the critic's estimation error. These refined value estimates then score the segment between consecutive states with a TD($λ$) advantage, while the sampled evidence supplies training targets for the critic. FOCUS supports long-horizon agentic reinforcement learning through a modular context-management interface that decouples context management from rollout allocation. Our experiments show that using compaction-induced segment boundaries for value estimation and credit assignment, FOCUS outperforms GRPO and VinePPO with matched per-step generation budgets on legal reasoning, deep search, and code localization benchmarks, improving held-out accuracy at Qwen3.5-9B scale by 7.2 points over the strongest baseline on BrowseComp-Plus (55.4 vs. 48.2) and by 4.1 points on DeonticBench (56.5 vs. 52.4).