LocusRL: Diagnosing LLM Reward and Policy Interventions in Competitive Games

Abstract

Large language models can intervene in reinforcement learning through both reward design and action selection, yet aggregate performance offers an incomplete account of what these interventions actually do. Similar returns can conceal different learning mechanisms, while plausible rewards can induce undesirable behavior. We introduce LocusRL, a diagnostic framework that connects controlled reward-policy comparisons with audits of reward judgments, signal delivery, optimization objectives, and executed actions. The framework traces performance differences to testable explanations and checks targeted corrections through executable rules and counterfactual replay. Across two evaluation batches covering ten Connect Four training seeds, we uncover seed-dependent reversals in intervention effects and show how tracing actual updates changes their interpretation: historical Qwen training operates through reward-weighted teacher-action likelihood. A separate matched three-seed reward-direction experiment distinguishes sensitivity to a learning signal from its usefulness. With terminal rewards held fixed, a sign-reversed dense oracle yields a 2.8% aggregate win rate, compared with 57.2% for terminal-only training and 46.7% for the positive dense oracle. Thus, a reward can strongly influence learning without improving performance. At the decision level, counterfactual replay verifies a winning correction to a diagnosed action error. Complementary experiments in Leduc and reward-validation studies in Goofspiel extend the analysis to imperfect-information settings, revealing how reference-label definitions and validation-data exposure affect intervention assessment. Together, these findings show why evaluating LLM interventions requires tracing how their outputs become learning signals and actions. LocusRL turns aggregate outcomes into actionable diagnoses and verifiable corrections.