Large Language Model (LLM)-based search agents trained with reinforcement learning (RL) have significantly improved the performance of knowledge-intensive tasks. However, existing methods encounter critical challenges in long-horizon credit assignment: (i) Reward Sparsity, where models receive only outcome feedback without step-level guidance to differentiate action quality; (ii) Isolated Credit, where credit is assigned to steps independently, failing to capture sequential dependencies; and (iii) Distributional Shift, where rewards are estimated on templates that deviate from the model's natural generative distribution. To address these issues, we propose Pivot-Based Credit Assignment (PiCA), a novel step reward mechanism that reformulates the search trajectory as a sequential process of cumulative search progress. Unlike prior isolated step rewards, PiCA defines process rewards as success probabilities dependent on the historical context based on Potential-Based Reward Shaping (PBRS). This approach identifies pivot steps, which comprise target golden sub-queries and sub-answers derived from historical trajectories, as information peaks that significantly boost the likelihood of a correct final answer. By anchoring these step rewards to the final task objective, PiCA provides dense, pivot-aware and trajectory-dependent guidance while maintaining distributional consistency. Extensive experiments show that PiCA outperforms existing strong baselines across seven knowledge-intensive QA benchmarks, achieving 15.2% and 2.2% improvements for 3B and 7B models. The consistent performance gains across various models show PiCA's robust generalization. The code is available at https://github.com/novdream/PiCA.
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.
Long-horizon search agents must make multiple sequential actions (steps) to search, retrieve, verify, and integrate evidence to reach a final answer. However, existing methods for training these agents typically treat all steps within a trajectory uniformly during both supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning (RL), failing to distinguish useful actions from erroneous or redundant ones. In this paper, we propose Answer-Backtracked Credit Assignment (ABC), a fine-grained credit assignment framework for training long-horizon search agents by converting sparse trajectory-level outcomes into dense step-level supervision that rewards useful actions (even in failed trajectories) while suppressing erroneous or redundant actions. Specifically, given a potentially obscure query and its corresponding ground-truth answer, ABC first performs Answer-Backtracked Clue Recovery, which traces back from the answer to recover intermediate clues required to solve the question. It then applies Clue-Anchored Step Scoring to evaluate each search step against these clues, converting sparse binary outcome supervision into dense step-level rewards. Based on these rewards, we develop ABC-SFT, which reweights the loss of each turn, and ABC-GRPO, which uses the step-level scores as rewards in GRPO. Building on this framework, we train ABSeeker based on Qwen3.5-4B with only 8.5k examples. ABSeeker achieves 37.3% on BrowseComp and 39.1% on BrowseComp-ZH. With context management, the scores further improve to 55.3% and 52.9%, respectively, significantly outperforming same-scale (4B) agents and even matching the performance of larger ones (approximately 30B). These results demonstrate the effectiveness of answer-backtracked step-level credit assignment for training long-horizon search agents.
Recent LLM search agents use reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) to learn search-augmented reasoning from outcome rewards. On hard problems, these agents rarely sample end-to-end successful rollouts, leaving outcome-only RLVR with few positive-reward trajectories. We argue that improving learning on such problems requires additional guidance during training, and RLVR already contains verifier-side information that can provide it. This information can identify errors or omissions in the agent's submitted answer and guide revision within the rollout. We propose a training-time mechanism called \textbf{Credit-Attenuated Privileged Feedback} (CAPF), which makes this verifier-side information available through a Privileged Feedback call during training. CAPF lets the policy revise zero-reward attempts into positive-reward repair trajectories and attenuates credit for the feedback call and earlier actions to accommodate deployment without this call. Empirical research demonstrates that CAPF improves Qwen3-4B's average exact-match score from 44.7% under outcome-only RLVR to 48.5% on seven open-domain QA benchmarks.