Scaling the delegation backbone in hierarchical search agents improves EM by ~11 points while scaling the executor moves EM by only ~2.6 points, and a 1.7B SFT executor matches a frontier sub-agent at 37% fewer tokens.
Retrieval, Reward, and Training Protocols: What Matters in Training Search Agents?
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
Search agents powered by large language models can autonomously decompose queries, retrieve information, and synthesize answers through multi-step reasoning. However, the rapid growth of training methods has outpaced controlled comparison: existing works differ in retrieval corpora, reward designs, and training protocols, making it unclear what actually drives improvements. We present a controlled empirical study that isolates three under-explored dimensions of search agent training. First, we identify a critical data-coverage issue in the widely used Wikipedia 2018 corpus and show that correcting it alone yields larger gains than the differences between training algorithms. Second, we systematically compare outcome-based and process-based reward methods across three base models, finding that the simplest outcome-based approach achieves competitive or superior performance in most settings, and that process-level credit assignment can over-correct agent behavior. Third, we analyze training data diversity, off-policy data utilization, and search budget scaling, distilling practical guidelines for training effective search agents. Our code is available at https://github.com/YiboZhao624/SearchAgentReview.
fields
cs.CL 1years
2026 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Think Big, Search Small: Where Capacity Matters in Hierarchical Search Agents?
Scaling the delegation backbone in hierarchical search agents improves EM by ~11 points while scaling the executor moves EM by only ~2.6 points, and a 1.7B SFT executor matches a frontier sub-agent at 37% fewer tokens.