Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

A search agent can produce its own per-turn training signal by deleting each turn from a finished trajectory and measuring the drop in its gold-answer likelihood; this backward leave-one-turn attribution with sign-consistency gating beats f

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Leave-one-turn deletion attribution, in which replacing a search turn with [DELETE] and measuring the drop in gold-answer likelihood yields a sign-gated, self-generated process reward, improves multi-turn search RL by 0.053 average EM over IGPO.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-02 challenge →

load-bearing objection Well-specified, cheap process-supervision idea with real novelty, but the placeholder confound and single-run evidence keep the headline claim from being established. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13501 v2 pith:DT7QFW6K submitted 2026-07-15 cs.AI

LOTAPO: Leave-One-Turn Attribution for Self-Generated Process Rewards in Multi-Turn Search Reasoning

Qiang Zhu , Jiajun Wu , Longyi Wang This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords reinforcement learningmulti-turn search reasoningprocess rewardscredit assignmentleave-one-turn attributionanswer-likelihood gainsign-consistency gatingretrieval-augmented reasoning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 is trying to establish that a search-reasoning agent can produce its own per-turn credit signal without any separate reward model, verifier, or judge. The recipe is simple: after a full trajectory, replace each search turn—its query and retrieved passages—with a fixed [DELETE] placeholder and measure how much the agent's own likelihood of the gold answer drops. If the turn helped, the likelihood falls; if it hurt, the likelihood rises; if nothing changes, the turn was redundant. The paper adds a gating step so that the normalized training signal is used only when it agrees in direction with the raw deletion signal. The claim is that this backward leave-one-turn attribution, judged in the complete final context, captures delayed cross-turn contributions that forward step-by-step information gain misses, and that it improves multi-turn search agents on seven question-answering benchmarks.

Core claim

The central claim is that the mean log-likelihood of the gold answer, scored under the current policy on the full pre-answer context versus a context with one search turn replaced by [DELETE], defines a valid turn-level attribution. The method uses this answer-likelihood gain as a process reward: positive gain means the turn contributed, negative gain means it misled, near-zero means redundant. Because the target turn is removed from the finished trajectory while every later search and observation stays in place, an early piece of evidence whose value only appears through later reasoning is counted correctly. Sign-consistency gating then prevents group normalization from flipping the gain's

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the answer-likelihood gain: Sθ(gold | full context) minus Sθ(gold | context with the target turn replaced by [DELETE]), computed as mean per-token log-likelihood over the gold answer. It estimates a turn's contribution while all downstream interactions remain intact, so delayed evidence can be credited retrospectively. The companion mechanism is sign-consistency gating, which keeps only process advantages whose normalized value agrees in sign with the raw gain, filtering out direction distortions introduced by group standardization. Together they convert a cheap, self-generated score into token-level advantages for policy optimization.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that replacing a search turn with a fixed [DELETE] placeholder only removes that turn's informational contribution, so the resulting change in gold-answer likelihood cleanly isolates the turn's causal value; if the placeholder itself disturbs the model's coherence, the attribution is contaminated.

What would settle it

Take a sample of trajectories and replace each deleted turn with several different neutral placeholders (a blank line, a period, an unrelated sentence, or a learned mask token). If the sign or ranking of answer-likelihood gains changes substantially across substitute placeholders for the same turn, then the measured signal is partly a placeholder artifact rather than a property of the turn itself.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Multi-turn search agents can receive per-turn credit without training or querying an external reward model, verifier, or LLM judge.
  • Early search turns whose value becomes clear only after later retrieval can be reinforced instead of wrongly penalized, which matters for multi-hop and compositional questions.
  • The same group-relative policy-optimization pipeline can be kept; the attribution score is computed from rollouts the policy already produced, adding only modest scoring overhead.
  • If the out-of-domain gains are real, the benefit generalizes beyond the specific training QA mix to new knowledge-intensive distributions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not test the placeholder's effect on contextual coherence; a natural follow-up is to compare [DELETE] with several neutral substitutes to see whether attribution signs are stable.
  • Because the signal uses gold answers at training time, an obvious extension is to replace them with the model's own accepted answer (self-consistency), which would remove the gold-label requirement at some cost in signal quality.
  • The leave-one-turn design measures each turn independently; leaving two turns out together would reveal whether the additive attribution hides interactions between mutually reinforcing searches.
  • If the per-step time overhead stays small on longer trajectories, this self-generated process reward could scale to web search and multimodal agents without external supervision.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LOTAPO, a method for self-generated process supervision in multi-turn search reasoning. For each search turn, LOTAPO replaces the turn and its retrieval observation with a fixed [DELETE] placeholder and computes the change in the current policy's mean log-likelihood of the gold answer, called the answer-likelihood gain. This gain is then robustly scaled, transformed with tanh, group-normalized, and filtered by a sign-consistency gate that retains only normalized advantages agreeing in sign with the raw gain. The resulting process advantage is added to the GRPO outcome advantage for policy-generated tokens in the corresponding turn. Experiments on seven QA datasets report an average EM of 0.326, outperforming the strongest step-reward baseline IGPO by 0.053, with ablations showing that both backward attribution and sign-consistency gating contribute to the gains. The paper includes reproducibility details, hyperparameters, training-cost measurements, and case studies.

Significance. If the empirical result holds, LOTAPO is a meaningful contribution: it offers a cheap, policy-derived process-reward signal that requires no external reward model, verifier, or LLM judge, and it integrates directly into GRPO. The method is precisely specified, the ablations isolate the effect of backward attribution and gating, and the training-cost analysis shows only a small overhead relative to outcome-only RL. The paper is also honest about key limitations, explicitly stating in the Conclusion that the signal is 'a context- and policy-dependent counterfactual attribution rather than a formally identified causal effect.' However, the strength of the empirical claim is currently limited by the absence of any uncertainty quantification: all results come from single training runs, and the headline 0.053 average gain over IGPO is only about 2.5 standard errors on 500-example evaluation sets before accounting for RL seed noise. In addition, the [DELETE]-placeholder counterfactual, acknowledged in Appendix A.3 as not separately evaluated for contextual coherence, introduces a potential confound that is load-bearing for interpreting the process signal as turn contribution rather than c

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.1, Table 1, Table 2] All RL results are reported from a single training run with no seeds, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The evaluation sets contain 500 examples each; for the average EM of 0.326, the binomial standard error is roughly sqrt(0.326*0.674/500)=0.021. The reported 0.053 advantage over IGPO (0.326 vs. 0.273) is therefore only about 2.5 SEs, and this calculation ignores additional variance from RL training randomness. Individual dataset gaps are even less stable. To support the claim that LOTAPO outperforms IGPO and other baselines, the authors should report the mean and variance over at least three to five seeds, or provide statistical significance tests. Without this, the main empirical conclusion is not yet established.
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (6); Appendix A.3] The leave-one-turn counterfactual replaces the target search turn with a fixed [DELETE] token while retaining all downstream turns, which were generated under the full context. Such a spliced context is not a valid trajectory under the policy: downstream turns may quote, refer to, or build on the removed evidence. The resulting decrease in gold-answer likelihood may therefore reflect an incoherent or dangling-reference context rather than the marginal contribution of the removed turn. Appendix A.3 concedes 'we do not separately evaluate the placeholder's effect on contextual coherence,' and the Conclusion concedes the score is not a formally identified causal effect. Because every process advantage and the sign-consistency gate itself are monotone functions of Δ (Eqs. 10-13), a coherence confound would propagate through the entire training signal, and the 0.053 average improvement could
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1, Table 5] The validation sample size is given as 500 for each dataset, but the test-set sizes and exact test splits are not reported. Please provide the number of test examples and the specific original split used for each of the seven datasets.
  2. [Abstract / Conclusion] The abstract states that the method 'estimates the turn's contribution,' which is more causal in tone than the Conclusion's careful caveat that the signal is a 'context- and policy-dependent counterfactual attribution rather than a formally identified causal effect.' Please align the abstract and main text with the limitations stated in the Conclusion.
  3. [§3.2, Eq. (5)] The notation π_θ(a*_{i,k} | c, p, a*_{i,<k}) would benefit from a clarifying sentence that the gold-answer tokens are scored sequentially and that the template prefix p is fixed, so the score is a per-token mean log-likelihood rather than a joint sequence probability.
  4. [§4.4, Table 2] In the row 'LOTAPO w/o Gating' the HotpotQA value appears as 0.342 while the same configuration has a higher value on some datasets; the formatting around the table makes it hard to distinguish whether this is a typographical artifact. Please check the table formatting.
  5. [Appendix A.4] The wall-clock training-time comparison is useful but is reported for a single hardware/implementation setup. The statement 'does not produce a large increase in training time' should be qualified as specific to this configuration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: LOTAPO's process signal is computed directly from policy likelihoods and evaluated against external benchmarks.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The central process advantage A_proc is constructed from the raw answer-likelihood gain Delta = S_theta(a*|c_full) - S_theta(a*|c_-t), which is directly computed from the current policy's gold-answer log-likelihoods under full and leave-one-turn contexts (Eq. 6). This quantity is not fitted to the evaluation benchmarks, nor is it defined in terms of the terminal F1 reward; the terminal reward R_i = F1(yhat, a*) is a separate signal (Eq. 7). The normalization, tanh scaling, and sign-consistency gating are all deterministic transformations of Delta and do not introduce fitted parameters that encode the target outcome. The paper's comparisons are against external baselines on held-out test/validation splits, so the reported EM improvements are not forced by construction. The manuscript explicitly concedes two limitations: the placeholder's effect on contextual coherence is not separately evaluated (Appendix A.3), and the attribution is 'a context- and policy-dependent counterfactual attribution rather than a formally identified causal effect' (Conclusion). These are validity threats to the interpretation of the signal, not instances of the derivation reducing to its own inputs. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the related-work citations, including IGPO and TIPS, are to other author groups and are used for comparison, not to supply the paper's central mechanism. The only self-referential aspect is that the policy's own likelihood serves as the source of process supervision, but the paper states this as its explicit design and does not disguise a fitted parameter or imported uniqueness result as an independent prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical or model entities are postulated. The [DELETE] placeholder is a method token — its validity is a load-bearing assumption covered in the axioms — not an invented entity with a falsifiable handle. The only hand-set numbers are lambda=0.5 and G=5; other configuration values (batch size, learning rate, clip range, epsilon constants) are standard RL hyperparameters.

free parameters (2)
  • lambda (process-advantage weight) = 0.5
    Hand-set in Sec. 3.3 / Eq. 14 and Table 3; controls the magnitude of the self-generated process signal added to the outcome advantage. No sensitivity sweep is reported, so the headline gain is tied to this single value.
  • G (rollouts per question) = 5
    Group size used for both outcome and process normalization (Eqs. 8-11); the process-signal scale and the sign-consistency gate depend on these five trajectories per group.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Mean gold-answer token log-likelihood under the current policy is a faithful proxy for a search turn's contribution.
    Eqs. (5)-(6) define the entire attribution on this quantity; the paper concedes in the Conclusion this is 'a context- and policy-dependent counterfactual attribution rather than a formally identified causal effect.'
  • domain assumption Replacing a search turn and its observation with a fixed [DELETE] token approximates removing that turn without likelihood shifts from the placeholder itself.
    Core counterfactual in Sec. 3.2; Appendix A.3 admits 'we do not separately evaluate the placeholder's effect on contextual coherence.'
  • domain assumption Within-group normalization across the 5-rollout group produces a scale-comparable process signal across questions and trajectories.
    Eqs. (9)-(11); the gate (Eq. 12) exists precisely because normalization can reverse raw signs, so the reliability of the normalized scale is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption The reported single-run EM differences are representative of the methods' true performance.
    No seeds are reported in Sec. 4; the 0.053 average gap is within about two standard errors on 500-example eval sets before accounting for RL seed variance.
  • standard math GRPO clipped surrogate and KL penalty are valid update rules.
    Eq. (16) uses standard PPO-family machinery (Shao et al. 2024), adopted without modification.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LOTAPO: Leave-One-Turn Attribution for Self-Generated Process Rewards in Multi-Turn Search Reasoning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DT7QFW6K

@misc{pith2026260713501,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LOTAPO: Leave-One-Turn Attribution for Self-Generated Process Rewards in Multi-Turn Search Reasoning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DT7QFW6K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13501}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Reinforcement learning for multi-turn search reasoning typically relies on terminal outcome rewards, which cannot distinguish useful, redundant, and harmful intermediate interactions. We propose LOTAPO , a self-generated process-supervision method based on backward leave-one-turn attribution. For each search turn, LOTAPO replaces the turn and its retrieval observation with a fixed [DELETE] placeholder and measures the resulting change in the current policy's mean log-likelihood of the gold answer. This Answer-Likelihood Gain estimates the turn's contribution while preserving all downstream interactions, allowing early evidence to be evaluated in the complete reasoning context. LOTAPO further applies sign-consistency gating, retaining only normalized process advantages whose directions agree with their raw attribution scores. The method requires no additional reward model, teacher, verifier, or LLM-as-a-Judge. Across seven knowledge-intensive question-answering datasets with local retrieval, LOTAPO achieves an average exact-match score of 0.326, outperforming the strongest step-reward baseline, IGPO, by 0.053. Ablations show complementary benefits from backward attribution and sign-consistency gating, demonstrating that policy-derived retrospective attribution can provide effective process supervision for multi-turn search agents.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13501 by Jiajun Wu, Longyi Wang, Qiang Zhu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of LOTAPO. For each complete search trajectory, LOTAPO replaces each eligible search turn and its retrieval observation in turn with [DELETE], and estimates turn-level attribution using the difference in the current policy’s mean log-likelihood of the gold answer before and after replacement. The resulting attribution scores undergo robust scaling, a tanh bounded transformation, group normalizatio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Performance dynamics on held-out validation sets. Exact match (EM) for LOTAPO, IGPO, and Search-R1 over training steps; Total denotes the aggregate result over the four in-domain validation sets. 0 50 100 150 200 Training Steps 0.32 0.40 0.48 0.56 F1 Score Search-R1 IGPO LOTAPO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Training-performance dynamics. Trajectory-level answer F1 for the three methods over training steps. 0 50 100 150 200 Training Steps 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.33 0.36 ratio IGPO Positive IGPO Negative LOTAPO Positive LOTAPO Negative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Training time per step for different methods. Under the same hardware environment and training configuration, the average training times per step for Search-R1, IGPO, and LOTAPO are 191, 196, and 198 seconds, respectively. The red dashed lines and annotations indicate the additional wall-clock time and relative increase of IGPO and LOTAPO over Search-R1. B Prompt Template B.1 Agent Interaction Format For e… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A case in which backward leave-one-turn attribution identifies a delayed cross-turn contribution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. AttriMem: Attribution-Guided Process Feedback for Agent Memory Construction

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Token-level attribution of the final answer to memory tokens provides process rewards that improve RL-trained memory construction for LLM agents.

  2. AttriMem: Attribution-Guided Process Feedback for Agent Memory Construction

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Token-level attribution of the final answer to memory contents, used as RL process rewards, improves memory-construction policies for long-horizon dialogue QA.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    and Wang, Dong and Zamani, Hamed and Han, Jiawei , booktitle =

    Jin, Bowen and Zeng, Hansi and Yue, Zhenrui and Yoon, Jinsung and Arik, Sercan O. and Wang, Dong and Zamani, Hamed and Han, Jiawei , booktitle =. 2025 , url =

    2025

  2. [2]

    2025 , url =

    Song, Huatong and Jiang, Jinhao and Min, Yingqian and Chen, Jie and Chen, Zhipeng and Zhao, Wayne Xin and Fang, Lei and Wen, Ji-Rong , journal =. 2025 , url =

    2025

  3. [3]

    and Zhang, Wen and Chen, Huajun , journal =

    Chen, Mingyang and Li, Tianpeng and Sun, Haoze and Zhou, Yijie and Zhu, Chenzheng and Yang, Fan and Zhou, Zenan and Chen, Weipeng and Wang, Haofen and Pan, Jeff Z. and Zhang, Wen and Chen, Huajun , journal =. 2025 , url =

    2025

  4. [4]

    2025 , publisher =

    Wei, Zhepei and Yao, Wenlin and Liu, Yao and Zhang, Weizhi and Lu, Qin and Qiu, Liang and Yu, Changlong and Xu, Puyang and Zhang, Chao and Yin, Bing and Yun, Hyokun and Li, Lihong , booktitle =. 2025 , publisher =. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.401 , url =

    doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.401 2025

  5. [5]

    2026 , publisher =

    Wu, Jinming and Deng, Zihao and Li, Wei and Liu, Yiding and You, Bo and Li, Bo and Ma, Zejun and Liu, Ziwei , booktitle =. 2026 , publisher =. doi:10.18653/v1/2026.acl-long.114 , url =

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2026.acl-long.114 2026

  6. [6]

    2026 , doi =

    Tan, Zhiwen and Huang, Jiaming and Wu, Qintong and Zhang, Hongxuan and Zhuang, Chenyi and Gu, Jinjie , journal =. 2026 , doi =

    2026

  7. [7]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20050 , year =

    Let's Verify Step by Step , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20050 , year =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    2024 , publisher =

    Wang, Peiyi and Li, Lei and Shao, Zhihong and Xu, Runxin and Dai, Damai and Li, Yifei and Chen, Deli and Wu, Yu and Sui, Zhifang , booktitle =. 2024 , publisher =. doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.510 , url =

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.510 2024

  9. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14275 , year =

    Solving Math Word Problems with Process- and Outcome-Based Feedback , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14275 , year =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    2024 , doi =

    Zhang, Dan and Zhoubian, Sining and Hu, Ziniu and Yue, Yisong and Dong, Yuxiao and Tang, Jie , booktitle =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  11. [11]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.07396 , year =

    Rubric-based On-policy Distillation , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.07396 , year =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

    2026 , url =

    Yang, Shuo and Wu, Jinyang and Lu, Zhengxi and Shen, Yuhao and Zhang, Fan and Feng, Lang and Zhang, Shuai and Luo, Haoran and Lian, Zheng and Wen, Zhengqi and Tao, Jianhua , journal =. 2026 , url =

    2026

  13. [13]

    The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

    Information Gain-based Policy Optimization: A Simple and Effective Approach for Multi-Turn Search Agents , author =. The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

  14. [14]

    2026 , url =

    Xie, Yutao and Thomas, Nathaniel and Hansen, Nicklas and Fu, Yang and Li, Li Erran and Wang, Xiaolong , booktitle =. 2026 , url =

    2026

  15. [15]

    2025 , publisher =

    Zheng, Xuhui and An, Kang and Wang, Ziliang and Wang, Yuhang and Wu, Yichao , booktitle =. 2025 , publisher =. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1106 , url =

    doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1106 2025

  16. [16]

    2026 , url =

    Liang, Zihan and Ma, Yufei and Chen, Ben and Qian, Zhipeng and Dai, Huangyu and Mao, Lingtao and Zhang, Xuxin and Lei, Chenyi and Ou, Wenwu , journal =. 2026 , url =

    2026

  17. [17]

    Shao, Zhihong and Wang, Peiyi and Zhu, Qihao and Xu, Runxin and Song, Junxiao and Bi, Xiao and Zhang, Haowei and Zhang, Mingchuan and Li, Y. K. and Wu, Y. and Guo, Daya , journal =. 2024 , url =

    2024

  18. [18]

    2025 , publisher =

    Li, Xiaoxi and Dong, Guanting and Jin, Jiajie and Zhang, Yuyao and Zhou, Yujia and Zhu, Yutao and Zhang, Peitian and Dou, Zhicheng , booktitle =. 2025 , publisher =. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.276 , url =

    doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.276 2025

  19. [19]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =

    Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =. 2022 , url =

    2022

  20. [20]

    Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive

    Lewis, Patrick and Perez, Ethan and Piktus, Aleksandra and Petroni, Fabio and Karpukhin, Vladimir and Goyal, Naman and K. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =. 2020 , url =

    2020

  21. [21]

    Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , volume =

    Natural Questions: A Benchmark for Question Answering Research , author =. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  22. [22]

    and Zettlemoyer, Luke , booktitle =

    Joshi, Mandar and Choi, Eunsol and Weld, Daniel S. and Zettlemoyer, Luke , booktitle =. 2017 , publisher =. doi:10.18653/v1/P17-1147 , url =

    doi:10.18653/v1/p17-1147 2017

  23. [23]

    and Salakhutdinov, Ruslan and Manning, Christopher D

    Yang, Zhilin and Qi, Peng and Zhang, Saizheng and Bengio, Yoshua and Cohen, William W. and Salakhutdinov, Ruslan and Manning, Christopher D. , booktitle =. 2018 , publisher =. doi:10.18653/v1/D18-1259 , url =

    doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1259 2018

  24. [24]

    Constructing A Multi-hop

    Ho, Xanh and Duong Nguyen, Anh-Khoa and Sugawara, Saku and Aizawa, Akiko , booktitle =. Constructing A Multi-hop. 2020 , publisher =. doi:10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.580 , url =

    doi:10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.580 2020

  25. [25]

    2022 , doi =

    Trivedi, Harsh and Balasubramanian, Niranjan and Khot, Tushar and Sabharwal, Ashish , journal =. 2022 , doi =

    2022

  26. [26]

    Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 , pages =

    Measuring and Narrowing the Compositionality Gap in Language Models , author =. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 , pages =. 2023 , publisher =. doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.378 , url =

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.378 2023

  27. [27]

    Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages =

    When Not to Trust Language Models: Investigating Effectiveness of Parametric and Non-Parametric Memories , author =. Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages =. 2023 , publisher =. doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.546 , url =

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.546 2023

  28. [28]

    Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages =

    Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering , author =. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages =. 2020 , publisher =. doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.550 , url =

    doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.550 2020

  29. [29]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.03533 , year =

    Text Embeddings by Weakly-Supervised Contrastive Pre-training , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.03533 , year =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115 , year =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.00845 , year =

    Optimizing Agentic Reasoning with Retrieval via Synthetic Semantic Information Gain Reward , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.00845 , year =

    arXiv

  32. [32]

    2026 , publisher =

    Zhang, Yaocheng and Huang, Haohuan and Song, Zijun and Zhu, Yuanheng and Zhang, Qichao and Zhao, Zijie and Zhao, Dongbin , booktitle =. 2026 , publisher =. doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.596 , url =

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.596 2026

  33. [33]

    2026 , url =

    Feng, Xiao and Han, Bo and Zhou, Zhanke and Fan, Jiaqi and Yao, Jiangchao and Li, Ka Ho and Yu, Dahai and Ng, Michael Kwok-Po , journal =. 2026 , url =

    2026

  34. [34]

    Reinforcing Multi-Turn Reasoning in

    Wei, Quan and Zeng, Siliang and Li, Chenliang and Brown, William and Frunza, Oana and Deng, Wei and Schneider, Anderson and Nevmyvaka, Yuriy and Zhao, Yang Katie and Garcia, Alfredo and Hong, Mingyi , journal =. Reinforcing Multi-Turn Reasoning in. 2025 , url =

    2025

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.