Deep Research agents tackle knowledge-intensive tasks through multi-round retrieval and decision-oriented generation. While reinforcement learning (RL) has been shown to improve performance in this paradigm, its contributions remain underexplored. To fully understand the role of RL, we conduct a systematic study along three decoupled dimensions: prompt template, reward function, and policy optimization. Our study reveals that: 1) the Fast Thinking template yields greater stability and better performance than the Slow Thinking template used in prior work; 2) the F1-based reward underperforms the EM due to training collapse driven by answer avoidance; this can be mitigated by incorporating action-level penalties, ultimately surpassing EM; 3) REINFORCE outperforms PPO while requiring fewer search actions, whereas GRPO shows the poorest stability among policy optimization methods. Building on these insights, we then introduce Search-R1++, a strong baseline that improves the performance of Search-R1 from 0.403 to 0.442 (Qwen2.5-7B) and 0.289 to 0.331 (Qwen2.5-3B). We hope that our findings can pave the way for more principled and reliable RL training strategies in Deep Research systems.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An example of the Search-R1 generation pipeline.
Figure 2: ( a ) demonstrates Deep Research’s RL training pipeline; ( b ) shows an overview of the three key aspects explored in our work: prompt template , reward function , and policy optimization .
Figure 3: ( a ) Accuracy under varying information tokens; ( b ) Accuracy under varying reasoning tokens.
Figure 4: ( a ) compares the training score under Fast and Slow Thinking templates; ( b ) shows the average response length evolution over training steps; ( c ) illustrates the surge in <think> tags coinciding with the performance collapse.
Method
Single-Hop QA
Multi-Hop QA
Avg.
NQ
TriviaQA
PopQA
HotpotQA
2Wiki
Musique
Bamboogle
Qwen2.5-7B
Slow Thinking template (Search-R1)
0.451
0.620
0.434
0.361
0.386
0.163
0.406
0.403
Fast Thinking template (Ours)
0.463
0.640
0.458
0.427
0.360
0.156
0.453
0.422
Qwen2.5-3B
Slow Thinking template (Search-R1)
0.396
0.570
0.381
0.263
0.254
0.048
0.109
0.289
Table 1: Performance comparison of Slow vs. Fast Thinking templates across different model sizes. The Slow Thinking template corresponds to our reproduction of Search-R1 [ Jin et al., 2025 ] .
Method (Qwen2.5-7B)
Single-Hop QA
Multi-Hop QA
Avg.
NQ
TriviaQA
PopQA
HotpotQA
2Wiki
Musique
Bamboogle
Evaluation Metric: Exact Match (EM)
F1
0.404
0.634
0.406
0.382
0.392
0.148
0.375
0.391
EM
0.463
0.640
0.458
0.427
0.360
0.156
0.453
0.422
F1+
0.483
0.659
0.441
0.434
0.401
0.159
0.422
0.429
Evaluation Metric: F1 Score
Table 2: Performance comparison of different reward functions based on Qwen2.5-7B. F1+ denotes F1 reward augmented with penalties.
Method (Qwen2.5-3B)
Single-Hop QA
Multi-Hop QA
Avg.
NQ
TriviaQA
PopQA
HotpotQA
2Wiki
Musique
Bamboogle
Evaluation Metric: Exact Match (EM)
F1
0.402
0.565
0.380
0.261
0.245
0.038
0.125
0.288
EM
0.390
0.576
0.393
0.282
0.272
0.041
0.125
0.297
F1+
0.421
0.600
0.431
0.292
0.290
0.060
0.156
0.321
Evaluation Metric: F1 Score
Table 3: Performance comparison of different reward functions based on Qwen2.5-3B. F1+ denotes F1 reward augmented with penalties.
Figure 8
Method
Multi-Hop QA
HotpotQA
2Wiki
Musique
Bamboogle
Avg.
Acc
Count
Acc
Count
Acc
Count
Acc
Count
Acc
Count
REINFORCE [ Williams, 1992 ]
0.407
1.44
0.393
1.56
0.192
2.00
0.422
1.70
0.354
1.68
PPO [ Schulman et al., 2017 ]
0.427
1.99
0.357
2.02
0.156
1.90
0.453
2.00
0.348
1.98
GRPO [ Shao et al., 2024 ]
0.419
1.57
0.401
1.97
0.178
1.93
0.422
1.90
0.355
1.84
Table 4: Performance comparison of different policy optimization methods based on Qwen2.5-7B.
Figure 7: Training dynamics under different RL algorithms. ( a ) Training score during training. ( b ) Average number of search actions per step.
Method (Qwen2.5-7B)
Single-Hop QA
Multi-Hop QA
Avg.
NQ
TriviaQA
PopQA
HotpotQA
2Wiki
Musique
Bamboogle
RL Trained LLM without Retrieval
R1-base
0.297
0.539
0.202
0.242
0.273
0.083
0.296
0.276
Training free Deep Research Agent
ReAct
0.178
0.276
0.183
0.132
0.132
0.039
0.266
0.172
RL trained Deep Research Agents
Table 5: Performance comparison of different methods on single-hop and multi-hop QA benchmarks based on Qwen2.5-7B.
Method (Qwen2.5-3B)
Single-Hop QA
Multi-Hop QA
Avg.
NQ
TriviaQA
PopQA
HotpotQA
2Wiki
Musique
Bamboogle
RL Trained LLM without Retrieval
R1-base
0.226
0.455
0.173
0.201
0.268
0.055
0.224
0.229
Training free Deep Research Agent
ReAct
0.063
0.130
0.072
0.047
0.046
0.008
0.016
0.055
RL trained Deep Research Agents
Table 6: Performance comparison of different methods on single-hop and multi-hop QA benchmarks based on Qwen2.5-3B.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 8: Training dynamics of Qwen2.5-3B under different prompt templates.( a ) compares the training score under Fast and Slow Thinking templates; ( b ) shows the average response length evolution over training steps; ( c ) illustrates the surge in <think> tags coinciding with the performance collapse.
Figure 14
Method
Single-Hop QA
Multi-Hop QA
Avg.
NQ
TriviaQA
PopQA
HotpotQA
2Wiki
Musique
Bamboogle
REINFORCE
0.438
0.604
0.447
0.317
0.284
0.066
0.141
0.328
PPO
0.390
0.576
0.393
0.282
0.272
0.041
0.125
0.297
GRPO
0.415
0.586
0.439
0.306
0.297
0.062
0.135
0.315
Appendix
Table 7: Performance comparison of different optimization algorithms based on Qwen2.5-3B.
Figure 11: Training score of Qwen2.5-3B under different RL algorithms.
Question: Who has defined function of management as POSDCORB?
Ground Truth: Luther Gulick
Slow Thinking Template:
<think> The definition of the function of management by POSDCORB is in Wikipedia. So I conduct the following search </think>
<search> POSDCORB function of management </search>
<information> Doc 1(Title: POSDCORB) Committee, Luther Gulick asks rhetorically "What is the work of the chief executive? What does he do?" POSDCORB is the answer, "designed to call attention to the various functional elements of the work of a chief executive because ’administration’ and ’management’ have lost all specific content." According to Gulick, the elements are: Gulick’s "Notes on the Theory of Organization" further … </information>
<think> As per information 1, the description and definition of POSDCORB are found in Luther Gulick’s notes on the theory of organization. The main elements included in this acronym are Planning, Organizing, Staffing, Directing, Co-ordinating, Reporting and Budgeting. These tasks, Gulick states, together form the primary functions of a chief executive. </think>
Appendix
Table 8: An example of Slow Thinking Template during normal reasoning.
Question: When’s the last time the Jaguars made the playoffs?
Ground Truth: 2017
Slow Thinking Template:
<think> Jacksonville Jaguars </think>
<think> last playoff appearance </think>
<think> 2007 </think>
<think> To answer the question, I will search for the last time the Jacksonville Jaguars made the playoffs. </think>
Appendix
Table 9: An example of Slow Thinking Template before the collapse phase with increasing meaningless thinking.
Question: When did the first Curious George book come out?
Ground Truth: 1939
Slow Thinking Template:
<search> when did the first curious george book come out? </search>
<information> Doc 1(Title: "Curious George (book)") Curious George (book) Curious George is a children’s book written and illustrated by Margret Rey and H. A. Rey, and published by Houghton Mifflin in 1941. It is the first book in the Curious George series… </information>
<think> 1941 </think>
<think> <think>1941 </think> </think>
Appendix
Table 10: An example of Slow Thinking Template after collapse with repetitive thinking loops.
Question: When did the capital of Nigeria moved from Lagos to Abuja?
Ground Truth: 12 December 1991
Fast Thinking Template:
<search> when did the capital of nigeria moved from lagos to abuja </search>
<information> Doc 1(Title: Abuja) Abuja Abuja () is the capital city of Nigeria located in the centre of the country within the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). It is a planned city and was built mainly in the 1980s, replacing the country’s most populous city of Lagos as the capital on 12 December 1991. Abuja’s geography is defined by Aso Rock, a monolith left by water erosion. The Presidential Complex, National Assembly, Supreme Court and much of the city extend to the south of the rock. Zuma Rock…
Reinforcement Learning (RL) has emerged as a powerful training paradigm for LLM-based agents. However, scaling agentic RL for deep research remains constrained by two coupled challenges: hand-crafted synthetic data fails to elicit genuine real-world search capabilities, and real-world search dependency during RL training introduces instability and prohibitive cost, which limits the scalability of Agentic RL. LiteResearcher is a training framework that makes Agentic RL scalable: by constructing a lite virtual world that mirrors real-world search dynamics, we enable a continuously improving training recipe that empowers a tiny search agent to outperform large-scale open-source and commercial models (e.g., Tongyi DeepResearch and Claude-4.5 Sonnet). Specifically, on common benchmarks such as GAIA and Xbench, our LiteResearcher-4B achieves open-source state-of-the-art results of 71.3% and 78.0% respectively, demonstrating that scalable RL training is a key enabler for Deep Research Agents.
Wanli Li, Bince Qu, Bo Pan +5
Zhejiang University · Simplex AI · The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Deep-research agents answer complex questions by interacting with search and browsing tools, yet they often search along a single evolving trajectory. Our trajectory-level analysis reveals a common failure mode in which the agent may encounter an early search state with several plausible directions, but follow one direction before collecting enough comparative evidence. Once this happens, subsequent tool calls tend to reinforce the same path, increasing the chance of failure when the initial direction is misleading. We further find that successful trajectories reduce this risk through two behaviors: grounding vague exploration in concrete candidates and shifting directions when the current path is weak or incomplete. Based on these findings, we propose HypoSearch, which generates lightweight hypotheses as soft search hints, explores them through bounded independent branches, and compares branch-level evidence before commitment. Across four deep-research benchmarks and three backbone models, HypoSearch consistently outperforms single-trajectory search and standard parallel baselines, improving Qwen3.5-122B from 46.7 to 60.0 on BC-small while using fewer tool calls than five independent trajectories. A pilot supervised fine-tuning study further shows that these behavioral signals can curate compact training trajectories and reduce degradation from unfiltered data.
Ruochen Zhou, Zhengyu Chen, Luan Zhang +3
City University of Hong Kong · Meituan · Independent +1
Deep research agents are often trained on expensive, environment-grounded tool-use trajectories that require repeated retrieval, document inspection, and report evaluation. We introduce Deep Research Pretraining (DRP), an offline framework that derives predictive navigation supervision from naturally occurring evidence structures. Given a citation-bearing or hyperlinked passage, DRP constructs a proxy research objective, recovers linked evidence and graph-related alternatives, and converts them into search-open-write trajectories. This teaches models what to search for, which documents to inspect, and how to synthesize evidence, without a live retrieval environment or executed policy rollout. We instantiate DRP on scholarly citation graphs (DRP-Paper) and Wikipedia hyperlinks (DRP-Web), continually pretrain separate Qwen3-14B-Base models on 1B tokens, and fine-tune them on controlled fractions of 13K agent trajectories. Across five independently sampled subsets at each low-data budget, both variants consistently outperform matched no-DRP models on DeepResearch Bench. With one quarter of the SFT data, DRP-Web even surpasses a fixed no-DRP full-data checkpoint, with gains transferring to ResearchQA, WebWalkerQA, and SimpleQA. Starting from matched low-data SFT checkpoints, the DRP-Web advantage also persists through subsequent agentic RL. Source-matched and evidence-mismatch controls indicate that these improvements arise from evidence-conditioned navigation rather than domain exposure or agent-format imitation. DRP thus provides a promising complementary approach to trajectory-based agent training.