BiCAA: Bidirectional Credit Assignment for Search-Augmented Agent

Bin Xu; Conghui Zhu; Hailong Cao; Yibin Huang

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 18 references

BiCAA: Bidirectional Credit Assignment for Search-Augmented Agent

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fusing forward solvability gain with hindsight success criticality into a dense process reward stabilizes policy optimization, reduces redundant search, and improves search-augmented question answering.

desk verdict Sensible fusion of two reward signals, but the empirical case is too thin to back the headline claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01321 v1 pith:UA5SYVJD submitted 2026-08-02 cs.CL

Yibin Huang , Bin Xu , Hailong Cao , Conghui Zhu This is my paper

classification cs.CL

keywords creditassignmentprocessrewardsearch-augmentedagentsreinforcementlearningGRPOhindsightcriticalitysolvabilitygainquestionanswering

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

The paper argues that outcome-only reinforcement learning, as in vanilla GRPO, gives search agents no signal about which intermediate retrieval steps helped, causing unstable training and redundant queries. It proposes BiCAA, a credit-assignment scheme that scores each search step twice: once by how much it raises the model's confidence in the ground-truth answer (forward solvability gain), and once by how necessary the step was for the eventual correct answer when the answer is given in hindsight (hindsight success criticality). The two scores are combined with an asymmetric weighting rule and merged with the final outcome reward in a single advantage estimate. On seven search-augmented QA benchmarks and two backbone models, the method outperforms single-signal baselines and reduces redundant search behavior.

What carries the argument

The central object is the bidirectional process reward pair $(g_{i,t}, \omega_{i,t})$: the forward solvability gain $g_{i,t}$ (the marginal change in answer log-likelihood after a retrieval) and the hindsight success criticality ratio $\omega_{i,t}$ (the relative, clipped action likelihood under answer-conditioning). Their asymmetric fusion into $r_{i,t}$ and the unified advantage $A_{i,t} = \hat{r}^O_i + \alpha \sum_{k=t}^{t+L} \gamma^{k-t} \hat{r}_{i,k}$ carry the argument, delivering dense per-turn supervision without discarding the outcome reward.

What would settle it

Construct trajectories where a search step is either essential or redundant (for example, a duplicate query or a random passage), then check whether the hindsight criticality $\omega_{i,t}$ reliably separates them; if answer-conditioned action likelihoods stay high even when the retrieved content is replaced by irrelevant text, the metric is not measuring necessity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the sparse, outcome-only rewards of vanilla GRPO are the root cause of training instability and redundant search in multi-step search agents, and that dense process rewards built from two complementary views of each step fix this. Forward solvability gain $g_{i,t} = f_{i,t} - f_{i,t-1}$ measures the marginal change in average token log-likelihood of the correct answer after the $t$-th retrieval. Hindsight success criticality $h_{i,t}$ is the geometric mean of the policy's action log-likelihoods conditioned on the ground-truth answer, normalized by the trajectory mean and clipped to $\omega_{i,t}$. The hybrid reward $r_{i,t} = \omega_{i,t} g_{i,t}$ for positive gain

Load-bearing premise

The whole hindsight branch rests on the assumption that the policy's geometric-mean likelihood of an action, conditioned on the ground-truth answer, measures how necessary that action was for getting the answer right—an equivalence the paper states but does not validate independently.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If BiCAA is right, outcome-only RL recipes for search agents can be replaced by dense per-step rewards without a learned critic.
The two-signal fusion gives a principled way to penalize redundant searches: steps with high local gain but low hindsight criticality are down-weighted, so agents learn to stop searching.
The method transfers across two base models and multi-hop benchmarks, suggesting the reward design, not the backbone, drives the gains.
Because the process reward is computed from the policy's own likelihoods, it adds no external reward model; the paper reports the extra training overhead is about 10–13% of total latency.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: the HSC term uses the ground-truth answer at training time; a natural variant would substitute a learned verifier or self-consistency estimate so the signal could apply when answers are not known in advance.
Editorial extension: the same asymmetric fusion could transfer to other long-horizon agentic tasks (tool use, code repair) where steps have both local utility and global necessity.
Editorial extension: the paper's quadrant analysis suggests that the sign pattern of $(g, \omega)$ could serve as a training-time diagnostic for over-searching, separate from its use as a reward weight.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core idea here is reasonable: reward each search step both for improving answer solvability and for being retrospectively critical to the final answer, with an asymmetric weighting rule that softens penalties on important negative-gain steps. That fusion, plus the answer-conditioned geometric-mean criticality in Eq. (3), is genuinely new relative to the cited work. The paper also does honest ablations: removing either branch hurts, and the step-level quadrant analysis in Table 3 is a nice attempt to show the two signals carry different information. Two backbones and seven benchmarks is a solid evaluation if the numbers are trustworthy.

The problem is that the numbers are not yet substantiated. No error bars, confidence intervals, or multiple seeds appear anywhere. The main gains over HCAPO and GRPO are a few F1 points, which could easily be seed noise with group size 16 and up to 10 turns. Worse, the hyperparameter analysis picks alpha on the same seven test benchmarks that appear in Table 1, so the reported 52.1 is a best-of-five result; the baselines got no equivalent test-set tuning. That is a load-bearing issue, and it is not solved by the paper's own text. The 'stabilizes policy optimization' claim rests on two curves in Figure 2 with no error bars or statistical test. I also note the draft artifact in Figure 1 (embedded formula placeholder text) and the unexplained losses on NQ and Bamboogle versus baselines, which the paper does not discuss.

The stress-test note is right to say the alpha-selection problem is more serious than the HSC semantic assumption. Even if Eq. (3) is a flawed proxy for step criticality, the method could still work for other reasons; but if the empirical comparison is statistically invalid, superiority fails regardless of mechanism. That said, the HSC assumption is also unvalidated, and the paper would be stronger if it tested whether answer-conditioned action likelihood tracks human judgments or downstream search quality.

On balance: the idea deserves a serious referee, but the current manuscript needs major revision. I would want code and multiple seeds, a held-out alpha selection protocol, and a quantitative analysis of search frequency/redundancy with error bars. The paper does show clear thinking and honest engagement with related work, and the method is plausible enough to be worth pursuing. It is not a desk reject, but it is not ready to be accepted as-is.

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes BiCAA, a process-reward framework for training multi-step search-augmented QA agents. It combines a forward solvability gain (FSG), which measures the change in answer log-likelihood after each retrieval step, with a hindsight success criticality (HSC) signal, which re-weights steps by the answer-conditioned likelihood of the search action. The two signals are merged through an asymmetric modulation and combined with outcome rewards under a GRPO-style advantage estimator. Experiments on seven QA benchmarks with two backbone models report average F1 gains over GRPO, IGPO, HCAPO, and other baselines, plus ablations, a step-level behavior analysis, and a training-cost analysis.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, BiCAA would be a useful contribution to process-level credit assignment for search agents: it is a simple, practical way to densify rewards and it explicitly targets a known failure mode of outcome-only RL for multi-step tool use. The paper also provides a welcome decomposition of process reward design into forward evidence gain and retrospective criticality, and the ablation design is sensible. However, the manuscript does not currently establish the headline empirical superiority with adequate statistical rigor, and one of the two proposed components (FSG) is, by the authors' own related-work description, identical to the IGPO intrinsic reward. The HSC component is a heuristic whose underlying assumption is not validated. The contribution is therefore more incremental than the text claims, though the fusion idea itself is worth evaluating.

major comments (5)

[Hyperparameter Sensitivity Analysis, Table 4] The process-reward weight alpha is selected on the same seven test benchmarks used in Table 1. Table 4 reports in-domain, out-of-domain, and overall F1 for alpha in {0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0}, and alpha=0.25 is then used for the main comparison. This is test-set tuning: the reported 52.1 is the best of the five alpha values, and no baseline was given the same selection procedure. Because the central claim is the 3.8-point average improvement over HCAPO, the comparison is not a fair evaluation of the method versus the baselines. Please either report results on a held-out validation set for alpha selection, or provide multiple alpha values with error bars and show that the advantage holds over the whole reasonable range.
[Main Results, Table 1 and Table 2] No standard deviations, confidence intervals, or multiple-seed results are reported anywhere. With a group size of 16, up to 10 interaction turns, and F1 as the metric, a 3.8-point average gap (52.1 vs. 48.3) can easily be within run-to-run noise. The same issue affects the ablations in Table 2 and the alpha sensitivity in Table 4, so the claims that BiCAA 'stabilizes policy optimization' and 'reduces redundant search' are not quantitatively grounded. Please report at least 3-5 seeds with standard deviations, or a paired significance test across seeds, and apply the same reporting to ablations and sensitivity analyses.
[Main Results, Table 1] The paper claims BiCAA 'stabilizes' training and 'achieves competitive performance,' but the benchmark-level results contain large unaddressed regressions. On Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, Bamboogle drops from 69.0 (HCAPO) and 68.9 (GiGPO) to 59.0, a 10-point deficit; on Qwen3-8B, Bamboogle ties GRPO at 63.4. NQ is also slightly worse than GiGPO/HCAPO on Qwen2.5. These losses are not discussed, and they undermine the claim of consistent stabilization. Please explain these benchmark-specific failures or refine the claim to specify where the method helps and where it hurts.
[Method, Eqs. (1)-(3)] The forward solvability gain in Eqs. (1)-(2) is mathematically identical to the IGPO intrinsic process reward described in the Related Work ('checking whether the retrieved content increases the model's probability of producing the correct answer'). Thus the FSG branch is not a novel contribution. The novelty of BiCAA therefore rests on the HSC component and the modulation in Eq. (6). However, Eq. (3) introduces HSC as the answer-conditioned geometric-mean action likelihood with no derivation or validation. The assumption that a larger answer-conditioned action likelihood implies greater step criticality is plausible but unproven; it could be confounded by surface-level token probabilities. Please validate this assumption directly, e.g., by correlating HSC scores with the human/GPT-5.5 labels already collected in Table 3, or by an intervention study that removes high-HSC vs. low-HSC step
[Analysis Studies, Figure 2 and Table 3] The 'stabilization' and 'redundancy reduction' claims rest on Figure 2, but the figure shows single curves with no error bars, no seed variance, and no statistical test. The redundancy-rate and search-frequency metrics are not formally defined in the text, and Table 3's classification by GPT-5.5 is described without the prompt, annotation protocol, or agreement statistics. These are load-bearing for the behavioral claims. Please provide definitions, error bars or multiple runs, and annotation details.

minor comments (7)

[Figure 1] Figure 1 contains the placeholder text '在此处键⼊公式' ('insert formula here') and the surrounding math/layout is garbled. This must be fixed before publication.
[Related Work] The ReSearch citation is given as 'Chen et al.' with no year or venue; the reference entry is incomplete ('arXiv 2025' is appended oddly). Please complete all references and ensure consistent formatting.
[Method, Eq. (7)] The epsilon in Eq. (7) is undefined, and the text does not specify whether normalization is over the group of G rollouts or over all tokens. Please define all symbols.
[Analysis of Search Efficiency] The left panel of Figure 2 plots 'Search Frequency' with a maximum interaction cap of 10, but the y-axis goes to 4.0. Clarify whether this is average number of searches per trajectory and how the cap interacts with the metric.
[Experimental Setup] In Table 1, the 'Prompt-based CoT' row is only reported for Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct; the Qwen3-8B section starts with CoT+RAG. Either report CoT for both backbones or explain the omission.
[Ablation Studies] Table 2's ablation labels are clear, but the prose should state whether the ablations reuse the same alpha=0.25 or re-tune alpha for each variant. If re-tuned, report the selected values; if not, state that alpha is fixed.
[Throughout] There are numerous spacing and formatting errors in the LaTeX source (e.g., missing spaces, collapsed words like 'stepwisesupervisionsignals', 'decouple'), and the abstract uses 'competitive performance' while the conclusion claims 'superior answer performance'. Align the wording with the evidence.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: FSG is a renamed IGPO reward, and the reported best result is selected on the test set via alpha tuning.

renaming known result [Method, Forward Solvability Gain (Eqs. 1-2); Related Work, Credit Assignment in Agentic Search]
"fi,t = 1/N Σ log πθ(a|q, oi,≤t) ... gi,t = fi,t − fi,t−1 (Eqs. 1-2). Related Work: 'IGPO (Wang et al. 2025) defines an intrinsic process reward by checking whether the retrieved content increases the model’s probability of producing the correct answer'."

The paper presents Forward Solvability Gain as a novel criterion for step-level credit assignment, but Eq. (1) and (2) define exactly the same quantity as IGPO's intrinsic reward, which the paper itself acknowledges in Related Work. The only change is the label: 'forward solvability gain' replaces 'information gain'. Thus the FSG component—one of the two pillars of the claimed bidirectional reward—is a renaming of an existing method, not a first-principles derivation. This reduces the novelty of the credit-assignment mechanism and makes the 'new' signal equivalent to prior work by construction.
fitted input called prediction [Experiments, Hyperparameter Sensitivity Analysis; Implementation Details]
"We maintain fixed experimental settings and tune the weight hyperparameter α over {0.00,0.25,0.50,0.75,1.00}. Table 4 presents the quantitative results. ... the best overall performance achieved at α=0.25. (Implementation Details: 'we adopt ... a process reward weight α=0.25')"

The process-reward weight α is selected on the same seven test benchmarks that are later used for the main comparison in Table 1. The reported average F1 of 52.1 is the value at the chosen α, i.e., the best of the five α values evaluated on the test set. This makes the headline result a fitted maximum rather than an independent prediction. Baselines (HCAPO, IGPO, GRPO) are not given the same test-set tuning opportunity, so the reported gap is a selected result, not an unbiased estimate. The prediction of performance improvement is therefore statistically forced by the test-set selection.

full rationale

The paper's core derivation chain is not fully circular: the HSC signal in Eq. (3) is a heuristically defined quantity, but its interpretation as 'criticality' is an assumption, not a circular reduction. The training objective and advantage estimation follow standard PPO/GRPO practice. However, two significant circularity issues exist. First, the Forward Solvability Gain (Eqs. 1-2) is identical to the intrinsic reward of IGPO, which the paper explicitly cites in Related Work but does not attribute in the Method; presenting it as one of the paper's two complementary criteria is a renaming of a known result. Second, the hyperparameter α is tuned on the exact test benchmarks used for the final comparison, and the reported best performance is the selected maximum; this is a fitted input called a prediction, undermining the statistical force of the headline gains. No self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears. Overall, the partial reduction of FSG to prior work and the test-set selection yield a circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on four hyperparameters (alpha, Cmin/Cmax, gamma, L) that are either tuned on the test set or left unspecified, and on two unvalidated modeling assumptions about what the computed likelihoods mean. No new physical or computational entities are introduced beyond the reward signals themselves.

free parameters (4)

alpha (process reward weight) = 0.25
Tuned via sensitivity analysis on the same test benchmarks (Table 4); the best value is chosen from the test performance curve.
Cmin, Cmax (criticality clipping bounds) = not reported
Used in Eq. (5) to clip the normalized criticality ratio; values are not specified in the implementation details.
gamma (process reward discount) = not reported
Used in Eq. (8) to discount future process rewards; not specified in the paper.
L (lookahead horizon) = not reported
Controls the number of future steps included in the advantage estimate in Eq. (8); not specified in the paper.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Token-level average log-likelihood (Eq. 1) is an appropriate measure of answer plausibility given a trajectory prefix.
The paper uses this to define forward solvability gain but does not justify why averaging token log-likelihoods is the right metric for 'solvability'.
domain assumption Answer-conditioned action log-likelihood (Eq. 3) is a valid measure of a step's criticality for the final answer.
The HSC branch assumes that when the ground-truth answer is placed in the prompt, the policy's probability of generating a given search action reflects how necessary that action was. This is an unvalidated semantic assumption.
standard math Group-relative normalization of rewards (Eq. 7) removes scale differences without changing the optimization objective.
This is standard practice in GRPO-style methods and is not specific to this paper.
domain assumption The policy optimization objective (Eq. 9) with KL regularization is stable for the tested models.
The paper relies on standard clipped surrogate optimization and KL penalty, which is a common but not guaranteed-stable training setup.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of BiCAA: Bidirectional Credit Assignment for Search-Augmented Agent." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UA5SYVJD

@misc{pith2026260801321,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: BiCAA: Bidirectional Credit Assignment for Search-Augmented Agent},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UA5SYVJD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01321}
}

read the original abstract

Multi-step search is a fundamental capability for search agents, enabling them to iteratively acquire, refine, and integrate external evidence for complex reasoning QA. However, vanilla GRPO allocates rewards exclusively based on the model's final outputs, yielding outcome-only supervision with no supervisory signals for intermediate reasoning steps. Such sparse supervision easily causes training instability and redundant search behaviors on multi-step search tasks. To mitigate this limitation, we adopt process reward to deliver stepwise supervision signals. For this process reward, we propose two complementary criteria to judge each search step: whether the step yields new evidence to facilitate problem solving, and whether it forms an efficient, pivotal intermediate decision within the overall reasoning trajectory. Building on this insight, we propose BiCAA: a bidirectional credit assignment framework that delivers dense, distinguishing process rewards for search-augmented agents. BiCAA builds bidirectional process rewards by fusing two complementary signals: forward solvability gain and hindsight success criticality. The former quantifies step-wise improvements in answer plausibility, while the latter evaluates each step's necessity for final success via hindsight outcome-based criticality scoring. We modulate and aggregate the two signals and then fuse them with the outcome reward. Experiments on search-augmented QA benchmarks show that BiCAA stabilizes policy optimization, reduces redundant search behavior, and achieves competitive performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01321 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Overall framework of BiCAA. The model generates multi-step search trajectories, then computes Forward Solvability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Search behavior during training. Left: search fre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

[1]

Backtoba- sics:RevisitingREINFORCE-styleoptimizationforlearning from human feedback in LLMs

Ahmadian,A.;Cremer,C.;Gallé,M.;Fadaee,M.;Kreutzer, J.;Pietquin,O.;Üstün,A.;andHooker,S.2024. Backtoba- sics:RevisitingREINFORCE-styleoptimizationforlearning from human feedback in LLMs. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 12248–12267. Chen,M.;Sun,L.;Li,T.;Sun,H.;Zhou,Y.;Zhu,C...

arXiv 2024
[3]

Jiang,Z.;Xu,F.F.;Gao,L.;Sun,Z.;Liu,Q.;Dwivedi-Yu,J.; Yang, Y.; Callan, J.; and Neubig, G

Reinforce++: Stabilizingcritic-freepolicyoptimizationwithglobaladvan- tage normalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03262. Jiang,Z.;Xu,F.F.;Gao,L.;Sun,Z.;Liu,Q.;Dwivedi-Yu,J.; Yang, Y.; Callan, J.; and Neubig, G

arXiv
[5]

Joshi, M.; Choi, E.; Weld, D

Search-r1: Training llms to reason and leverage search engines with reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09516. Joshi, M.; Choi, E.; Weld, D. S.; and Zettlemoyer, L

arXiv
[7]

Mallen, A.; Asai, A.; Zhong, V.; Das, R.; Khashabi, D.; andHajishirzi,H.2023

Understanding r1-zero-like training: A critical perspective.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20783. Mallen, A.; Asai, A.; Zhong, V.; Das, R.; Khashabi, D.; andHajishirzi,H.2023. Whennottotrustlanguagemodels: Investigatingeffectivenessofparametricandnon-parametric memories. InProceedings of the 61st annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics ...

arXiv 2023
[9]

Sun, H.; Qiao, Z.; Guo, J.; Fan, X.; Hou, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Xie, P.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, F.; and Zhou, J

Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open lan- guage models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300. Sun, H.; Qiao, Z.; Guo, J.; Fan, X.; Hou, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Xie, P.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, F.; and Zhou, J

arXiv
[10]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.04588

Zerosearch: Incentivize the search capability of llms without searching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.04588. Tan,H.-Z.;Yang,X.-W.;Chen,H.;Shao,J.-J.;Wen,Y.;Shen, Y.;Luo,W.;Du,X.;Guo,L.-Z.;andLi,Y.-F.2026.Hindsight creditassignmentforlong-horizonllmagents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.08754. Trivedi, H.; Balasubramanian, N.; Khot, T.; and Sabharwal, A

arXiv 2026
[11]

Wang, L.; Yang, N.; Huang, X.; Jiao, B.; Yang, L.; Jiang, D.; Majumder, R.; and Wei, F

Information Gain-based Policy Op- timization:ASimpleandEffectiveApproachforMulti-Turn LLM Agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.14967. Wang, L.; Yang, N.; Huang, X.; Jiao, B.; Yang, L.; Jiang, D.; Majumder, R.; and Wei, F

arXiv
[13]

Reinforcing language agents via policy optimization with action decomposition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15821. Yang, A.; Li, A.; Yang, B.; Zhang, B.; Hui, B.; Zheng, B.; Yu,B.;Gao,C.;Huang,C.;Lv,C.;Zheng,C.;Liu,D.;Zhou, F.;Huang,F.;Hu,F.;Ge,H.;Wei,H.;Lin,H.;Tang,J.;Yang, J.; Tu, J.; Zhang, J.; Yang, J.; Yang, J.; Zhou, J.; Zhou, J.; Lin, J.; Dang, K.; Bao...

arXiv 2025

Show all 18 references

[14]

Yang,Z.;Qi,P.;Zhang,S.;Bengio,Y.;Cohen,W.;Salakhut- dinov, R.; and Manning, C

Qwen2.5 Technical Report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115. Yang,Z.;Qi,P.;Zhang,S.;Bengio,Y.;Cohen,W.;Salakhut- dinov, R.; and Manning, C. D

arXiv
[16]

InNeurIPS 2022 Foundation Models for Decision Making Workshop

React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. InNeurIPS 2022 Foundation Models for Decision Making Workshop. Yu, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Zhu, R.; Yuan, Y.; Zuo, X.; Yue, Y.; Dai, W.; Fan, T.; Liu, G.; Liu, L.; et al

2022
[17]

In ICML 2025 Workshop on Computer Use Agents

Reinforcing multi-turn reasoning in llm agents via turn-level credit assignment. In ICML 2025 Workshop on Computer Use Agents. Zheng, X.; An, K.; Wang, Z.; Wang, Y.; and Wu, Y

2025
[18]

InProceedings of the 2025 Confer- ence on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 21816–21841

StepSearch:IgnitingLLMssearchabilityviastep-wiseprox- imalpolicyoptimization. InProceedings of the 2025 Confer- ence on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 21816–21841

2025
[2017]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347

Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347. Shao,Z.;Wang,P.;Zhu,Q.;Xu,R.;Song,J.;Bi,X.;Zhang, H.; Zhang, M.; Li, Y.; Wu, Y.; et al

arXiv
[2018]

In Proceedings of the 2018 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, 2369–2380

HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. In Proceedings of the 2018 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, 2369–2380. Yao,S.;Zhao,J.;Yu,D.;Shafran,I.;Narasimhan,K.R.;and Cao, Y

2018
[2022]

Text Embeddings by Weakly-Supervised Contrastive Pre-training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.03533. Wei,J.;Wang,X.;Schuurmans,D.;Bosma,M.;Xia,F.;Chi, E.;Le,Q.V.;Zhou,D.;etal.2022.Chain-of-thoughtprompt- ing elicits reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information p...

2022 arXiv
[2023]

InProceedings of the 2023 confer- ence on empirical methods in natural language processing, 7969–7992

Active retrieval augmented generation. InProceedings of the 2023 confer- ence on empirical methods in natural language processing, 7969–7992. Jin, B.; Zeng, H.; Yue, Z.; Yoon, J.; Arik, S.; Wang, D.; Zamani, H.; and Han, J

2023
[2024]

InInternational Con- ference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, 39578– 39601

Let’s verify step by step. InInternational Con- ference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, 39578– 39601. Liu,Z.;Chen,C.;Li,W.;Qi,P.;Pang,T.;Du,C.;Lee,W.S.; and Lin, M

2024
[2025]

Hao, Y.; Jin, Z.; Liao, H.; Liu, K.; and Zhao, J

Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948. Hao, Y.; Jin, Z.; Liao, H.; Liu, K.; and Zhao, J

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Backtoba- sics:RevisitingREINFORCE-styleoptimizationforlearning from human feedback in LLMs

Ahmadian,A.;Cremer,C.;Gallé,M.;Fadaee,M.;Kreutzer, J.;Pietquin,O.;Üstün,A.;andHooker,S.2024. Backtoba- sics:RevisitingREINFORCE-styleoptimizationforlearning from human feedback in LLMs. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 12248–12267. Chen,M.;Sun,L.;Li,T.;Sun,H.;Zhou,Y.;Zhu,C...

arXiv 2024

[2] [3]

Jiang,Z.;Xu,F.F.;Gao,L.;Sun,Z.;Liu,Q.;Dwivedi-Yu,J.; Yang, Y.; Callan, J.; and Neubig, G

Reinforce++: Stabilizingcritic-freepolicyoptimizationwithglobaladvan- tage normalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03262. Jiang,Z.;Xu,F.F.;Gao,L.;Sun,Z.;Liu,Q.;Dwivedi-Yu,J.; Yang, Y.; Callan, J.; and Neubig, G

arXiv

[3] [5]

Joshi, M.; Choi, E.; Weld, D

Search-r1: Training llms to reason and leverage search engines with reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09516. Joshi, M.; Choi, E.; Weld, D. S.; and Zettlemoyer, L

arXiv

[4] [7]

Mallen, A.; Asai, A.; Zhong, V.; Das, R.; Khashabi, D.; andHajishirzi,H.2023

Understanding r1-zero-like training: A critical perspective.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20783. Mallen, A.; Asai, A.; Zhong, V.; Das, R.; Khashabi, D.; andHajishirzi,H.2023. Whennottotrustlanguagemodels: Investigatingeffectivenessofparametricandnon-parametric memories. InProceedings of the 61st annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics ...

arXiv 2023

[5] [9]

Sun, H.; Qiao, Z.; Guo, J.; Fan, X.; Hou, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Xie, P.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, F.; and Zhou, J

Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open lan- guage models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300. Sun, H.; Qiao, Z.; Guo, J.; Fan, X.; Hou, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Xie, P.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, F.; and Zhou, J

arXiv

[6] [10]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.04588

Zerosearch: Incentivize the search capability of llms without searching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.04588. Tan,H.-Z.;Yang,X.-W.;Chen,H.;Shao,J.-J.;Wen,Y.;Shen, Y.;Luo,W.;Du,X.;Guo,L.-Z.;andLi,Y.-F.2026.Hindsight creditassignmentforlong-horizonllmagents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.08754. Trivedi, H.; Balasubramanian, N.; Khot, T.; and Sabharwal, A

arXiv 2026

[7] [11]

Wang, L.; Yang, N.; Huang, X.; Jiao, B.; Yang, L.; Jiang, D.; Majumder, R.; and Wei, F

Information Gain-based Policy Op- timization:ASimpleandEffectiveApproachforMulti-Turn LLM Agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.14967. Wang, L.; Yang, N.; Huang, X.; Jiao, B.; Yang, L.; Jiang, D.; Majumder, R.; and Wei, F

arXiv

[8] [13]

Reinforcing language agents via policy optimization with action decomposition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15821. Yang, A.; Li, A.; Yang, B.; Zhang, B.; Hui, B.; Zheng, B.; Yu,B.;Gao,C.;Huang,C.;Lv,C.;Zheng,C.;Liu,D.;Zhou, F.;Huang,F.;Hu,F.;Ge,H.;Wei,H.;Lin,H.;Tang,J.;Yang, J.; Tu, J.; Zhang, J.; Yang, J.; Yang, J.; Zhou, J.; Zhou, J.; Lin, J.; Dang, K.; Bao...

arXiv 2025