Search-augmented large language models (LLMs) trained with reinforcement learning (RL) have achieved strong results on open-domain question answering (QA), but training still remains a significant challenge. The optimization is often unstable due to sparse rewards and difficult credit assignments across reasoning and tool calls. To address this, we introduce Turn-Level Information Potential Reward Shaping (TIPS), a simple framework that assigns dense, turn-level rewards to each reasoning + tool-call segment based on the increased likelihood of the correct answer under a teacher model. By leveraging the potential-based reward shaping, TIPS offers fine-grained and policy-invariant guidance that overcomes the limitations of outcome-only optimization. Evaluated on seven QA benchmarks, TIPS consistently outperforms GRPO/PPO baselines and substantially improves training stability. For instance, with a Qwen-2.5 7B Instruct model, TIPS improves the average Exact Match score by 11.8% and F1 by 13.6% relative to PPO. Our results demonstrate that turn-level information-potential reward shaping provides an effective and general solution to sparse-reward credit assignment for multi-turn LLM reasoning.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of our training framework. The policy model interacts with the environment by conducting multi-turn conversations: each turn consists of reasoning, issuing a query, and receiving search results, until a final answer is produced. Two dense reward signals are then derived: ( i ) an outcome reward , obtained by verifying whether the final answer matches the ground truth; and ( ii ) an information reward , provided by a teacher model that measures the information gain each turn contributes toward the ground truth. Both rewards are combined and optimized with PPO.
Figure 2: Turn-level information reward pipeline. At each turn, retrieved evidence updates the answer likelihood, yielding a turn-level reward Δk . These rewards are then injected at turn boundaries.
Figure 3: EM accuracy on the training set. TIPS converges to a high accuracy; PPO drifts late; GRPO collapses.
Model
In-domain
Out-of-domain
Avg
NQ
HotpotQA
TriviaQA
PopQA
2Wiki
MuSiQue
Bamboogle
Qwen-2.5-7B Instruct
PPO
41.95
34.46
63.71
43.55
32.94
8.94
35.40
37.28
GRPO
37.15
26.54
56.39
37.11
19.41
7.20
16.00
28.54
MT-GRPO*
37.17
29.28
58.29
38.37
22.62
7.99
19.20
30.42
MT-PPO
42.37
26.45
55.12
41.59
22.81
6.91
11.20
29.49
Table 1: Exact Match (EM) for 7B and 3B models. In-domain: {NQ, HotpotQA}. Out-of-domain: {TriviaQA, PopQA, 2Wiki, MuSiQue, Bamboogle}. The last column is the average over all 7 tasks.
Model
In-domain
Out-of-domain
Avg
NQ
HotpotQA
TriviaQA
PopQA
2Wiki
MuSiQue
Bamboogle
Qwen-2.5-7B Instruct
PPO
50.53
44.65
70.88
47.62
38.70
17.79
45.33
45.07
GRPO
47.85
35.29
63.58
42.51
24.15
12.12
22.93
35.49
MT-GRPO*
48.10
38.36
66.05
44.11
27.94
14.29
28.25
38.16
MT-PPO
50.60
35.29
62.08
46.45
28.56
12.13
20.87
36.57
Table 2: F1 for 7B and 3B models. In-domain: {NQ, HotpotQA}. Out-of-domain: {TriviaQA, PopQA, 2Wiki, MuSiQue, Bamboogle}. The last column is the average over all 7 tasks.
Model
EM
F1
FLOPs overhead (%)
Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct
33.6 (+11.4%)
41.1 (+10.2%)
11.761
Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
48.4 (+7.3%)
57.1 (+6.1%)
11.846
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
41.7 (+11.9%)
51.2 (+13.7%)
11.810
Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct
45.4 (+12.7%)
53.1 (+10.6%)
11.813
Llama3.1-8B
40.3 (+34.0%)
49.0 (+29.3%)
11.659
Table 3: Generalization of TIPS across model families and scales. EM/F1 are TIPS scores; percentages in parentheses indicate relative improvement over the outcome-only PPO baseline. FLOPs overhead is the relative per-step increase due to teacher scoring.
Figure 4: Training dynamics of PPO vs. TIPS. Blue curves denote PPO and orange curves denote TIPS with teacher refresh every 200 steps. Overall, TIPS climbs steadily to higher and more stable plateaus, while PPO often suffers mid-training drift or collapse, especially on multi-hop datasets.
Figure 8
Base model
Small (0.001–0.05)
Medium (0.05–0.3)
Large (0.3–1.0)
Qwen3-4B
+1.4% (stable)
+7.3% (stable)
−3.4% (stable)
Qwen2.5-7B
0% (crashed)
+11.9% (stable)
+3.1% (stable)
Qwen2.5-3B
0% (stable)
+11.4% (stable)
0% (stable)
Table 5: EM gains over PPO for different target information-reward ranges under dynamic α . The medium band yields stable and consistently positive gains across backbones; very small targets effectively turn shaping off, while very large targets let shaping compete with the terminal reward and can hurt performance.
Figure 6: Effect of the teacher refresh interval on EM for TIPS.
Policy
Frozen policy
Qwen3-4B-TIPS
Llama3.1-8B
Qwen2.5-7B
41.7 (+11.9%)
30.0 (-19.5%)
29.0 (-22.2%)
Qwen3-4B
48.4 (+7.3%)
45.88 (+1.7%)
43.0 (-4.7%)
Table 6: Ablation on teacher selection. Rows fix the policy backbone and vary the teacher.
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: BrowseComp-Plus performance versus model size. We plot PPO (blue circles), GRPO (orange squares), and TIPS (green triangles) for Qwen2.5-3B/7B and Qwen3-4B, together with the 32B Search-R1 PPO agent. TIPS consistently outperforms outcome-only PPO/GRPO at each scale, and a 4B TIPS agent even surpasses the 32B Search-R1 baseline.
Model
PPO
GRPO
TIPS
Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct
1.20
1.20
1.57
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
1.24
3.61
4.10
Qwen3-4B-Instruct
6.75
2.65
9.40
Search-R1-32B
4.11
–
–
Appendix
Table 7: BrowseComp-Plus accuracy (%). TIPS consistently improves over PPO/GRPO, and our Qwen3-4B TIPS agent surpasses a 32B Search-R1 baseline.
Parameter
Value
topk (–topk)
3
faiss_gpu (–faiss_gpu)
True
retrieval_method
e5 (dense)
retrieval_pooling_method
mean
retrieval_query_max_length
256
retrieval_use_fp16
True
Appendix
Table 8: Retrieval server configuration
Parameter
Value
algorithm.adv_estimator
grpo
algorithm.gamma
1.0
algorithm.lam
1.0
algorithm.use_kl_in_reward
False
actor_rollout_ref.actor.use_kl_loss
True
actor_rollout_ref.actor.kl_loss_type
low_var_kl
Appendix
Table 9: Hyperparameter settings for GRPO-family algorithms
Parameter
Value
algorithm.adv_estimator
gae
algorithm.use_kl_in_reward
False
data.train_batch_size
256
data.val_batch_size
256
data.max_prompt_length
4096
data.max_response_length
4096
Appendix
Table 10: Hyperparameter settings for PPO-family algorithms
Figure 8: Sample failed rollout generated with PPO with advantage heatmap
Figure 9: Sample failed rollout generated with TIPS with advantage heatmap
Figure 10: Sample successful rollout generated with TIPS with advantage heatmap
Figure 11: Sample successful rollout generated with PPO with advantage heatmap
Figure 12: A failure case for TIPS’ reward. We see that the policy executed a good, detailed tool call, whose results returned the correct answer Watchmen . However, the tool call was assigned a negative Δ , indicating the answer was less likely after seeing the tool results, compared to after only seeing the prompt. We do note that this may just be noise, as the absolute scale of the reward is rather small.
Reinforcement learning has emerged as an effective paradigm for training large language models to perform search-augmented reasoning. However, existing approaches rely on trajectory-level rewards that cannot distinguish precise search queries from vague or redundant ones within a rollout group, and collapse to a near-zero gradient signal whenever every sampled trajectory fails. In this paper, we propose IG-Search, a reinforcement learning framework that introduces a step-level reward based on Information Gain (IG). For each search step, IG measures how much the retrieved documents improve the model's confidence in the gold answer relative to a counterfactual baseline of random documents, thereby reflecting the effectiveness of the underlying search query. This signal is fed back to the corresponding search-query tokens via per-token advantage modulation in GRPO, enabling fine-grained, step-level credit assignment within a rollout. Unlike prior step-level methods that require either externally annotated intermediate supervision or shared environment states across trajectories, IG-Search derives its signals from the policy's own generation probabilities, requiring no intermediate annotations beyond standard question-answer pairs. Experiments on seven single-hop and multi-hop QA benchmarks demonstrate that IG-Search achieves an average EM of 0.430 with Qwen2.5-3B, outperforming the strongest trajectory-level baseline (MR-Search) by 1.6 points and the step-level method GiGPO by 0.9 points on average across benchmarks, with particularly pronounced gains on multi-hop reasoning tasks. Despite introducing a dense step-level signal, IG-Search adds only ~6.4% to per-step training wall-clock time over the trajectory-level baseline and leaves inference latency unchanged, while still providing a meaningful gradient signal even when every sampled trajectory answers incorrectly.
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.
Post-training has become the dominant recipe for turning a language model into a competent search-augmented reasoning agent. A line of recent work pushes its performance further by adding elaborate machinery on top of this standard pipeline. These augmentations import external supervision from stronger external systems, attach auxiliary modules such as process reward models or retrospective critics, restructure the rollout itself with tree search or multi-stage curricula, or shape the reward with hand-crafted bonuses and penalties. Each addition delivers a measurable gain, but each also inflates the training pipeline and ties the recipe to resources or designs that may not always be available. We take a step back and ask whether any of this machinery is actually necessary, and propose Search-E1, a self-evolution method that lets a search-augmented agent improve through only vanilla GRPO interleaved with on-policy self-distillation (OPSD). After each GRPO round, the policy rolls out on its own training questions. A token-level forward KL objective then aligns the policy's inference-time distribution to its own distribution under a privileged context that exposes a more efficient sibling trajectory. Despite this simplicity, the procedure naturally provides dense per-step supervision. On seven QA benchmarks, Search-E1 reaches 0.440 average EM with Qwen2.5-3B, surpassing all open-source baselines at both scales. Code and complete version will be made public soon.