Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 55 references

Search-GRT: Guided Retrieval Training of Search Agents to Optimize for Complex Question Answering

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Guided Retrieval Training restricts training-time search to ground-truth-similar documents and reports a 44% relative gain in multi-hop QA exact match over Search-R1.

desk verdict Plausible training-time trick with a real but unverified transfer story; deserves review but not acceptance on current evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00974 v1 pith:JPW4YRVZ submitted 2026-08-02 cs.AI

Aounon Kumar , Sudipta Paul , Vivek Kulkarni , Vijay Srinivasan , Srinivas Chappidi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords searchagentsmulti-hopquestionansweringreinforcementlearningguidedretrievaltrainingretrieval-augmentedgenerationexactmatchsubquery
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces Guided Retrieval Training (GRT), a training-time intervention for reinforcement-learned search agents. During RL training, GRT restricts the search engine to a small corpus of documents most similar to ground truth information for each example, instead of letting the agent retrieve from the full Wikipedia corpus. The paper claims this densifies the reward signal and teaches the agent to generate better subqueries and synthesize answers, without any change to the search process at inference time. On seven QA benchmarks, GRT raises multi-hop exact match from 0.206 to 0.297 relative to Search-R1—about a 44% relative gain—and raises the all-task average from 0.318 to 0.375. A sympathetic reader would care because it is a simple intervention with no inference-time cost and consistent gains across in-domain and out-of-domain tasks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the restricted retrieval corpus $\mathrm{ResCorp}(s)$: for each item of ground truth information in a training example, the paper keeps only the top-300 documents by cosine similarity of text embeddings, and the search engine during RL training may retrieve only from that union. This acts as a training-time filter that puts evidence near the answer inside the agent's context, so the policy receives a denser reward signal even when its early subqueries are poor. Because the same policy is later run against the full corpus, the method transfers only if the model learns generalizable query decomposition and synthesis from these filtered contexts.

What would settle it

Train GRT on Natural Questions with the gold answer string removed from the query-plus-answer text used to build the restricted corpus, then measure exact match on the full Wikipedia corpus at inference; if the reported gain over Search-R1 collapses, the improvement came from answer-string leakage rather than from learned subquery generation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

GRT's central claim is that restricting the retriever during RL training to a ground-truth-guided subset of documents produces a search agent that retrieves and answers better on the full corpus at inference. For a training example $s$, the paper defines the restricted corpus as $\mathrm{ResCorp}(s) = \bigcup_{i \in GT_s} \{ d \in \Gamma \mid \text{similarity}(d,i) \in \text{top-}\kappa \}$, where $\Gamma$ is the 2018 Wikipedia corpus, $\text{similarity}$ is cosine similarity of text embeddings, and $\kappa=300$; ground truth information $GT_s$ comes from gold passages on HotpotQA and from concatenating the query with the gold answer on Natural Questions. With a 3-billion-parameter language model trained by PPO and reward 1 only on exact answer match, GRT reports higher retrieval accuracy and higher answer accuracy conditional on correct retrieval than the Search-R1 baseline, and validation rewards computed with the unrestricted retriever are also higher. The authors interpret this as evidence that the model learns to generate better subqueries and to synthesize answers from retrieved documents, rather than relying on the restricted corpus at inference.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the documents most similar to the question plus its known answer really contain the supporting evidence needed to learn good search behavior, rather than just containing the answer text itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the four multi-hop benchmarks, GRT's average exact match is 0.297 versus 0.206 for Search-R1, a relative improvement of about 44%; if correct, guided retrieval alone accounts for most of the gain.
  • The all-task average across seven QA datasets rises from 0.318 to 0.375, so the benefit is not confined to the two training datasets and appears on out-of-domain tasks like TriviaQA, PopQA, 2Wiki, Musique, and Bamboogle.
  • GRT improves both retrieval accuracy and answer accuracy given correct retrieval, which implies the training signal strengthens subquery generation and reasoning over retrieved text, not just answer copying from a smaller corpus.
  • Training reward is higher in the early RL steps and better QA accuracy is reached in fewer training steps, so GRT is a sample-efficiency improvement as well as a performance improvement.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • For Natural Questions, the pseudo-ground-truth of query plus gold answer may push documents containing the answer string itself into the restricted pool; if the model learns to copy from those, the reported gain could shrink or vanish on questions whose answer is not verbatim in the retrieved text.
  • The same guided-retrieval idea could be tested as a general reward-shaping recipe for other RL agents with oracle evidence, such as code repair or tool-use agents, by replacing the search corpus with a small set of expert-provided documents during training.
  • The choice of $\kappa=300$ and the embedding model are untested hyperparameters; a sweep over $\kappa$ or a change of embedding model would show how much of the effect depends on the exact similarity ranking.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Guided Retrieval Training (GRT), a training-time intervention for RL-trained search agents. During PPO training on Natural Questions (NQ) and HotpotQA, the retriever is restricted to ResCorp(s): for each ground-truth item, the top-kappa E5-nearest documents in the 2018 Wikipedia corpus, using gold passages for HotpotQA and the concatenation of query and gold answer for NQ. At inference the retriever searches the full corpus. The experiments report consistent exact-match gains over Search-R1 and other baselines on seven QA datasets, with the MHQA average rising from 0.206 to 0.297 and the all-task average from 0.318 to 0.375; additional figures report higher retrieval accuracy, better answer synthesis, and higher training/validation rewards. No code or data are released.

Significance. If the results withstand scrutiny, GRT is a simple and transferable recipe: giving the policy access to answer-bearing documents during early RL removes the sparse-reward bottleneck and leads to better subquery generation and answer synthesis, with gains that persist when the retriever is unrestricted at inference. The paper deserves credit for reporting full-corpus evaluation and validation reward rather than only restricted-training metrics, for recomputing the Search-R1 baseline under a common setup, and for separating retrieval accuracy from answer synthesis in the analysis. The significance is currently conditional because the main support for the method's most interesting regime (NQ, no passage-level supervision) rests on an unvalidated pseudo-ground-truth construction, and because all headline numbers are single-run comparisons without variance or significance testing.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, definition of ResCorp(s)] For Natural Questions, GT_s is the concatenation of the user query and the gold answer, and the training retriever is restricted to documents whose E5 similarity to that string is in the top kappa. Combined with the exact-match reward, this makes answer copying from a small, answer-enriched pool a viable training strategy that does not require learning to decompose multi-hop questions; whether such behavior transfers to full-corpus inference is untested. Please validate the pseudo-ground-truth construction (e.g., check that the restricted pool actually contains the supporting passage, measure how often the gold answer string appears in the top-kappa documents, and ablate with passage-level supervision on a subset) and provide a metric that isolates subquery quality, such as overlap with gold subqueries or retrieval of gold supporting passages. The current Section 5.1 definition of retrieval accuracy (presence of the gold answer string in retrieved documents) cannot distinguish good search from answer copying.
  2. [Table 1] All numbers are reported as point estimates from what appears to be a single training run. The headline MHQA gain (0.206 vs. 0.297) and all-task gain (0.318 vs. 0.375) need error bars across seeds and a paired significance test, especially because several evaluation sets are small (Bamboogle has 125 test examples and PopQA is a single test split). Without this, the improvement could be within run-to-run variance.
  3. [Section 4.3, kappa setting] kappa is fixed at 300 with no sensitivity analysis. The size of the restricted corpus controls how much the training distribution differs from the inference distribution, so the reader cannot tell whether the benefit is robust or requires a carefully tuned kappa. Please report performance for a range of kappa values (e.g., 100, 300, 1000) on at least NQ and HotpotQA.
  4. [Reproducibility and evaluation protocol] No code, data splits, or trained checkpoints are provided, so the ResCorp(s) construction and the recomputed Search-R1 numbers in Table 1 cannot be independently verified. In addition, the evaluation protocol for Figures 1 and 2 is under-specified: the paper should state whether retrieval accuracy and answer synthesis are computed with the full 2018 Wikipedia corpus or with the restricted corpus at each checkpoint, and how many retrieved documents are inspected for the 'any retrieved document contains the answer' criterion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3, Text generation] The word 'inital' in the Text generation paragraph should be 'initial'.
  2. [Section 4.1] The first sentence contains the typo 'in-ditribution'; it should be 'in-distribution'.
  3. [Table 1] The column header 'A verage' contains an unintended space, and '2wiki' should be '2Wiki' for consistency with Table 2.
  4. [Section 5.1] The phrase 'any if the the retrieved documents' is a typo for 'any of the retrieved documents'.
  5. [References] References [1] and [2] are the same paper (Ma et al., EMNLP 2023), and references [12] and [29] both cite IRCoT; please deduplicate.
  6. [Figure 2a] Because training rewards are computed under different retrieval distributions, the caption should state that the comparison is between environments, not just policies.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline full-corpus evaluation is independent of the training-time restricted retrieval.

full rationale

GRT's central claim is that training with a ground-truth-restricted retrieval pool improves a search agent's full-corpus QA performance. The ResCorp(s) construction (Section 3) uses ground truth information to define the training pool, but the final Table 1 and validation reward (Figure 2b) are measured with the retriever operating on the entire 2018 Wikipedia corpus, as the paper explicitly states: 'during validation, the retriever operates on the entire Wikipedia 2018 corpus, without the restrictions applied during training.' Therefore the headline numbers are not forced by the training-time restriction. The NQ pseudo-ground-truth construction, which concatenates the user query and the ground truth answer, is a possible shortcut: the restricted pool is answer-enriched, so exact-match reward can be obtained by copying answer spans. However, this is a generalization or robustness concern, not circularity, because the inference-time search still faces the full corpus and the empirical transfer is the actual test. Figure 2a's higher training reward is expected from the method's design ('this enhanced learning signal is achieved through our guided retrieval mechanism'), but the paper does not present training reward as a prediction or as evidence of transfer; it separately reports validation reward on the unrestricted corpus. The retrieval accuracy in Figure 1a is computed on test data, not inside the restricted pool. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the reference list contains no overlapping authors, and the Search-R1 baseline is re-computed from an external codebase. The Limitations section explicitly acknowledges the reliance on ground truth information, making the assumption visible rather than hidden. Hence no step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces one hand-set hyperparameter, kappa, and relies on domain assumptions about ground-truth-guided retrieval. The NQ pseudo-GT construction is the most fragile assumption. No new theoretical entities, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • kappa = 300
    Number of top similar documents per ground truth item included in the restricted corpus. Set without sensitivity analysis; it controls how much retrieval is restricted during training.
  • beta = not reported (inherited from Search-R1 setup)
    KL regularization coefficient in the RL objective. Its value is not stated, so readers cannot assess the trade-off between reward and policy regularization.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity in E5 embedding space ranks documents by relevance to a query or ground-truth string.
    Used to define ResCorp in Section 3. No evaluation of retriever quality in the restricted setting is provided.
  • domain assumption HotpotQA ground truth passages contain the information needed to derive the correct answer.
    GRT restricts retrieval to these passages during training for HotpotQA; if they are incomplete or noisy, the training signal is degraded.
  • ad hoc to paper For NQ, concatenating the user query and the gold answer is a sufficient proxy for ground truth information.
    This pseudo-GT construction is introduced only for datasets without gold passages and is not validated against any reference retrieval set.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Search-GRT: Guided Retrieval Training of Search Agents to Optimize for Complex Question Answering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JPW4YRVZ

@misc{pith2026260800974,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Search-GRT: Guided Retrieval Training of Search Agents to Optimize for Complex Question Answering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JPW4YRVZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00974}
}
read the original abstract

The effective use of search engines by large language models (LLMs) remains a significant challenge, particularly in complex, multi-hop question-answering (MHQA) tasks. These tasks require the model to decompose questions into subqueries, retrieve relevant information, and synthesize answers from multiple sources, often leading to cascading errors due to poor retrieval in early stages. Reinforcement learning (RL) has shown promise in improving LLMs' search capabilities, but it often suffers from sparse rewards during training, hindering the model's ability to learn effectively. To address these challenges, we introduce Guided Retrieval Training (GRT), a novel method that improves the performance of a search agent by restricting the retrieval process during RL training using ground truth information. By focusing on a curated set of relevant documents, GRT provides the model with a stronger learning signal, mitigating the problem of sparse rewards and improving its ability to generate accurate subqueries and synthesize correct answers. Our experimental results demonstrate that GRT achieves consistent performance improvements over existing methods, such as Search-R1, across a wide range of question-answering (QA) tasks. Notably, GRT excels in MHQA tasks, achieving over 40% improvements in performance. Additionally, GRT enhances training efficiency by achieving better QA performance with fewer training steps.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00974 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. compares the RL reward obtained by our method (GRT) and Search-R1 on both training and validation samples. In Figure 2a, we observe that our GRT approach provides the model with a higher training reward, offering a stronger learn￾ing signal to the LLM. This improvement partially addresses the challenge of sparse rewards in the early stages of the RL training (steps 0-150), enabling the model to learn more effec￾tive… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Traditionally, users were required to manually compile information by reviewing a list of results generated by search engines

    Introduction The advent of large language models (LLMs) has revolutionized the way we search for and interact with information on the in- ternet. Traditionally, users were required to manually compile information by reviewing a list of results generated by search engines. The integration of LLMs into search systems has sig- nificantly transformed this lan...

    work page

  2. [2]

    A novel method that enhances search agents by restricting retrieval during training using ground truth information

    work page

  3. [3]

    Experimental results demonstrating consistent performance improvements over baselines across several QA tasks, with significant gains in multi-hop QA

    work page

  4. [4]

    Further analysis showing GRT’s ability to improve retrieval and answer accuracy, while generalizing to unseen samples and utilizing the actual search engine at inference time. The implications of our work extend beyond search agent research, contributing to the broader goal of improving AI sys- tems’ ability to retrieve and synthesize information from vas...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    Question answering tasks can be categorized into two sub-classes: general question answering

    Related Work Recent research has leveraged LLMs as search-augmented agents, enabling open-domain question answering by retrieving documents from large corpora and generating answers based on the retrieved information [9]. Question answering tasks can be categorized into two sub-classes: general question answering

    work page

  6. [6]

    Limitations While our Guided Retrieval Training method demonstrates sig- nificant improvements in search agent performance, particularly for multi-hop question-answering tasks, it is important to ac- knowledge its limitations. First, our approach relies on ground truth information to restrict the retrieval corpus during training, which may not always be a...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Conclusions We introduce Guided Retrieval Training (GRT), a novel method to enhance search agents by improving retrieval and answer synthesis during training. Our experimental results demonstrate that GRT achieves consistent performance improvements over Search-R1 across a wide range of question-answering (QA) tasks, including both general QA and multi-ho...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Other notable works include HiPRAG [16], R1-Searcher [17],β-GRPO [18] and ZeroSearch [19]

    shows that purely outcome-based RL can train LLMs to in- terleave reasoning with multiple search queries. Other notable works include HiPRAG [16], R1-Searcher [17],β-GRPO [18] and ZeroSearch [19]

    work page

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    It breaks the query into subqueries and uses the search engine to find relevant information for each subquery

    Our Method: Guided Retrieval Training During RL training, a search agent starts with an example user query from the training set. It breaks the query into subqueries and uses the search engine to find relevant information for each subquery. The search engine searches over a la...

    2018

  2. [10]

    To address open- domain question answering, several approaches have been pro- posed such as IRCoT [12], ReAct [13], CoRAG [14] and Deep- RAG [15]

    and multi-hop question answering [11]. To address open- domain question answering, several approaches have been pro- posed such as IRCoT [12], ReAct [13], CoRAG [14] and Deep- RAG [15]. Recently, Reinforcement learning has been used to optimize end-to-end agent trajectories di...

  3. [11]

    Experimental Setup 4.1. Datasets and Metrics Following the convention from previous work on search agents [8], we use a collection of question answering (QA) datasets spanning two categories: 1.General Question Answering:Natural Questions (NQ) [20], TriviaQA [21], and PopQA [2...

  4. [12]

    Our method demonstrates strong performance across all individual QA tasks, achieving the highest or second-highest accuracy in each case

    Results and Analysis Our main results are presented in Table 1, which compares the performance, as measured by the exact match metric, of our method with several baselines, including Search-R1. Our method demonstrates strong performance across all individual QA tasks, achievin...

    2018

  5. [13]

    React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in lan- guage models,

    S. Yao, J. Zhao, D. Yu, N. Du, I. Shafran, K. R. Narasimhan, and Y . Cao, “React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in lan- guage models,” inThe eleventh international conference on learn- ing representations, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Chain-of-retrieval augmented generation,

    L. Wang, H. Chen, N. Yang, X. Huang, Z. Dou, and F. Wei, “Chain-of-retrieval augmented generation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14342, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Generative AI Use Disclosure In the preparation of this paper, generative AI tools like large language models have been used to assist in the editing and pol- ishing of the text. These tools have been employed to enhance the readability, clarity, and language quality of the ma...

  8. [16]

    Query rewriting in retrieval-augmented large language models,

    X. Ma, Y . Gong, P. He, H. Zhao, and N. Duan, “Query rewriting in retrieval-augmented large language models,” inProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2023, Singapore, December 6-10, 2023, H. Bouamor, J. Pino, and K. Bali,...

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Query rewriting in retrieval-augmented large language models,

    ——, “Query rewriting in retrieval-augmented large language models,” inProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, H. Bouamor, J. Pino, and K. Bali, Eds. Singapore: Association for Computational Linguistics, Dec. 2023, pp. 5303–5315. ...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Enhancing conversational search: Large language model-aided informative query rewriting,

    F. Ye, M. Fang, S. Li, and E. Yilmaz, “Enhancing conversational search: Large language model-aided informative query rewriting,” inFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, H. Bouamor, J. Pino, and K. Bali, Eds. Singapore: Association for Computati...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Genrewrite: Query rewriting via large language models,

    J. Liu and B. Mozafari, “Genrewrite: Query rewriting via large language models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2403.09060

    2025

  12. [20]

    A survey on rag meeting llms: Towards retrieval-augmented large language models,

    W. Fan, Y . Ding, L. Ning, S. Wang, H. Li, D. Yin, T.-S. Chua, and Q. Li, “A survey on rag meeting llms: Towards retrieval-augmented large language models,” inProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, ser. KDD ’24. New York, NY , USA...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Retrieval- augmented generation for large language models: A survey,

    Y . Gao, Y . Xiong, X. Gao, K. Jia, J. Pan, Y . Bi, Y . Dai, J. Sun, Q. Guo, M. Wang, and H. Wang, “Retrieval- augmented generation for large language models: A survey,” CoRR, vol. abs/2312.10997, 2023. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.10997

    2023 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Search arena: Analyzing search-augmented llms,

    M. Miroyan, T. Wu, L. King, T. Li, J. Pan, X. Hu, W. Chiang, A. N. Angelopoulos, T. Darrell, N. Norouzi, and J. E. Gonzalez, “Search arena: Analyzing search-augmented llms,”CoRR, vol. abs/2506.05334, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.05334

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    Search-r1: Training LLMs to reason and leverage search engines with reinforcement learning,

    B. Jin, H. Zeng, Z. Yue, J. Yoon, S. O. Arik, D. Wang, H. Zamani, and J. Han, “Search-r1: Training LLMs to reason and leverage search engines with reinforcement learning,” inSecond Conference on Language Modeling, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=Rwhi91ideu

    2025

  16. [24]

    Reading wikipedia to answer open-domain questions,

    D. Chen, A. Fisch, J. Weston, and A. Bordes, “Reading wikipedia to answer open-domain questions,” inProceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (V olume 1: Long Papers), 2017, pp. 1870–1879

    2017

  17. [25]

    Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering re- search,

    T. Kwiatkowski, J. Palomaki, O. Redfield, M. Collins, A. Parikh, C. Alberti, D. Epstein, I. Polosukhin, J. Devlin, K. Leeet al., “Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering re- search,”Transactions of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics, vol. 7, pp. 453–...

    2019

  18. [26]

    Hotpotqa: A dataset for diverse, explain- able multi-hop question answering,

    Z. Yang, P. Qi, S. Zhang, Y . Bengio, W. Cohen, R. Salakhutdinov, and C. D. Manning, “Hotpotqa: A dataset for diverse, explain- able multi-hop question answering,” inProceedings of the 2018 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, 2018, pp. 2369–2380

    2018

  19. [27]

    Interleaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step questions,

    H. Trivedi, N. Balasubramanian, T. Khot, and A. Sabhar- wal, “Interleaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step questions,” inProceedings of the 61st annual meeting of the association for computational linguis- tics (volume 1: long paper...

    2023

  20. [28]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge- intensive nlp tasks,

    P. Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, V . Karpukhin, N. Goyal, H. K ¨uttler, M. Lewis, W.-t. Yih, T. Rockt ¨aschel, S. Riedel, and D. Kiela, “Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge- intensive nlp tasks,” inProceedings of the 34th International Con- ference on Neural...

    2020

  21. [29]

    Interleaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step questions,

    H. Trivedi, N. Balasubramanian, T. Khot, and A. Sabharwal, “Interleaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step questions,” inProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (V olume 1: Long Papers),...

    2023

  22. [30]

    Deeprag: Thinking to retrieve step by step for large language models,

    X. Guan, J. Zeng, F. Meng, C. Xin, Y . Lu, H. Lin, X. Han, L. Sun, and J. Zhou, “Deeprag: Thinking to retrieve step by step for large language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01142, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Hiprag: hierarchical process rewards for efficient agentic re- trieval augmented generation,

    P. Wu, M. Zhang, K. Wan, W. Zhao, K. He, X. Du, and Z. Chen, “Hiprag: hierarchical process rewards for efficient agentic re- trieval augmented generation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.07794, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    These methods improve the LLM’s performance through fine-tuning on QA task data or the LLM’s own responses that lead to correct answers

    and rejection sampling [33] with a search engine. These methods improve the LLM’s performance through fine-tuning on QA task data or the LLM’s own responses that lead to correct answers. Our method (GRT) and Search-R1 fall at the intersection of the last two categories. 4.3. I...

  25. [33]

    R1-searcher: Incentivizing the search capability in llms via reinforcement learning,

    H. Song, J. Jiang, Y . Min, J. Chen, Z. Chen, W. X. Zhao, L. Fang, and J.-R. Wen, “R1-searcher: Incentivizing the search capability in llms via reinforcement learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05592, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Search wisely: Mitigating sub-optimal agentic searches by reducing uncertainty,

    P. Wu, M. Zhang, X. Zhang, X. Du, and Z. Chen, “Search wisely: Mitigating sub-optimal agentic searches by reducing uncertainty,” inProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2025, pp. 19 734–19 745

    2025

  27. [35]

    Zerosearch: Incentivize the search capability of llms without searching,

    H. Sun, Z. Qiao, J. Guo, X. Fan, Y . Hou, Y . Jiang, P. Xie, Y . Zhang, F. Huang, and J. Zhou, “Zerosearch: Incentivize the search capability of llms without searching,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.04588, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    The knowledge corpus used for the search engine retrieval mechanism consists of the 2018 Wikipedia documents

    with E5 text embeddings [37]. The knowledge corpus used for the search engine retrieval mechanism consists of the 2018 Wikipedia documents. For our restricted retrieval mechanism (see Section 3), we set the number of relevant documents per ground truth informationκto 300

    2018

  29. [37]

    Natural questions: A benchmark for question answering research,

    T. Kwiatkowski, J. Palomaki, O. Redfield, M. Collins, A. Parikh, C. Alberti, D. Epstein, I. Polosukhin, J. Devlin, K. Lee, K. Toutanova, L. Jones, M. Kelcey, M.-W. Chang, A. M. Dai, J. Uszkoreit, Q. Le, and S. Petrov, “Natural questions: A benchmark for question answering rese...

  30. [38]

    TriviaQA: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension,

    M. Joshi, E. Choi, D. Weld, and L. Zettlemoyer, “TriviaQA: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension,” inProceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (V olume 1: Long Papers), R. Barzilay and M.-Y ...

    2017

  31. [39]

    When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness of parametric and non-parametric memories,

    A. Mallen, A. Asai, V . Zhong, R. Das, D. Khashabi, and H. Hajishirzi, “When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness of parametric and non-parametric memories,” in Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (V olum...

    2023

  32. [40]

    HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering,

    Z. Yang, P. Qi, S. Zhang, Y . Bengio, W. Cohen, R. Salakhutdinov, and C. D. Manning, “HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering,” inProceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, E. Riloff, D. Chiang, J. ...

    2018

  33. [41]

    Constructing a multi-hop QA dataset for comprehensive evaluation of reasoning steps,

    X. Ho, A.-K. Duong Nguyen, S. Sugawara, and A. Aizawa, “Constructing a multi-hop QA dataset for comprehensive evaluation of reasoning steps,” inProceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, D. Scott, N. Bel, and C. Zong, Eds. Barcelona, Spain (...

    2020

  34. [42]

    MuSiQue: Multihop questions via single-hop question com- position,

    H. Trivedi, N. Balasubramanian, T. Khot, and A. Sabharwal, “MuSiQue: Multihop questions via single-hop question com- position,”Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 10, pp. 539–554, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/2022.tacl-1.31/

    2022

  35. [43]

    Measuring and narrowing the compositionality gap in language models,

    O. Press, M. Zhang, S. Min, L. Schmidt, N. Smith, and M. Lewis, “Measuring and narrowing the compositionality gap in language models,” inFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, H. Bouamor, J. Pino, and K. Bali, Eds. Singapore: Association for Com...

    2023

  36. [44]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, B. Ichter, F. Xia, E. H. Chi, Q. V . Le, and D. Zhou, “Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,” inProceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, ser. NIPS ’22. ...

    2022

  37. [47]

    Search-o1: Agentic search-enhanced large reasoning models,

    X. Li, G. Dong, J. Jin, Y . Zhang, Y . Zhou, Y . Zhu, P. Zhang, and Z. Dou, “Search-o1: Agentic search-enhanced large reasoning models,” inProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2025, Suzhou, China, November 4-9, 2025, C. ...

    2025 doi

  38. [48]

    Scaling instruction-finetuned language models,

    H. W. Chung, L. Hou, S. Longpre, B. Zoph, Y . Tay, W. Fedus, Y . Li, X. Wang, M. Dehghani, S. Brahma, A. Webson, S. S. Gu, Z. Dai, M. Suzgun, X. Chen, A. Chowdhery, A. Castro-Ros, M. Pellat, K. Robinson, D. Valter, S. Narang, G. Mishra, A. Yu, V . Y . Zhao, Y . Huang, A. M. Da...

    2024

  39. [49]

    Deepseek-r1 incentivizes reasoning in llms through reinforcement learning,

    D. Guo, D. Yang, H. Zhang, J. Song, P. Wang, Q. Zhu, R. Xu, R. Zhang, S. Ma, X. Bi, X. Zhang, X. Yu, Y . Wu, Z. F. Wu, Z. Gou, Z. Shao, Z. Li, Z. Gao, A. Liu, B. Xue, B. Wang, B. Wu, B. Feng, C. Lu, C. Zhao, C. Deng, C. Ruan, D. Dai, D. Chen, D. Ji, E. Li, F. Lin, F. Dai, F. L...

    2025

  40. [50]

    Scaling relationship on learning mathematical reasoning with large language models,

    Z. Yuan, H. Yuan, C. Li, G. Dong, C. Tan, and C. Zhou, “Scaling relationship on learning mathematical reasoning with large language models,”CoRR, vol. abs/2308.01825, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.01825

    2023 doi arXiv

  41. [51]

    Qwen2.5 technical report,

    A. Yang, B. Yang, B. Zhang, B. Hui, B. Zheng, B. Yu, C. Li, D. Liu, F. Huang, H. Wei, H. Lin, J. Yang, J. Tu, J. Zhang, J. Yang, J. Yang, J. Zhou, J. Lin, K. Dang, K. Lu, K. Bao, K. Yang, L. Yu, M. Li, M. Xue, P. Zhang, Q. Zhu, R. Men, R. Lin, T. Li, T. Xia, X. Ren, X. Ren, Y ...

    2024 doi arXiv

  42. [52]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms,

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Proximal policy optimization algorithms,”CoRR, vol. abs/1707.06347, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/ abs/1707.06347

    2017 arXiv

  43. [53]

    Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering,

    V . Karpukhin, B. Oguz, S. Min, P. Lewis, L. Wu, S. Edunov, D. Chen, and W.-t. Yih, “Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering,” inProceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), B. Webber, T. Cohn, Y . He, and Y...

    2020

  44. [54]

    Text embeddings by weakly- supervised contrastive pre-training,

    L. Wang, N. Yang, X. Huang, B. Jiao, L. Yang, D. Jiang, R. Majumder, and F. Wei, “Text embeddings by weakly- supervised contrastive pre-training,”CoRR, vol. abs/2212.03533,

    arXiv

  45. [1611]

    Available: https://aclanthology.org/P17-1147/

    [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/P17-1147/

  46. [2019]

    Available: https://aclanthology.org/Q19-1026/

    [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/Q19-1026/

  47. [2022]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212. 03533

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.