Budget-Aware LLM Discovery via Cost-Calibrated Frontier Utility

While reinforcement learning has enabled LLM-based search agents to invoke external tools, existing methods train under fixed budgets and cannot adapt when constraints vary at deployment. We propose AnySearch, a framework that enables a single policy to perform budget-aware search under any budget constraint through a training scaffold and curriculum reinforcement learning. In the first phase, we train the agent with explicit budget state injection and structured reasoning prompts that guide efficient allocation under linearly decaying budgets. In the second phase, the scaffold is removed and the agent learns to operate autonomously under adaptively sampled budget constraints, matching inference conditions. Both phases are optimized with a composite reward that couples answer accuracy with budget efficiency through absolute and relative signals, where an adaptive weight amplifies the efficiency signal for high-accuracy queries and attenuates it for low-accuracy ones. Extensive experiments on seven general and multi-hop QA benchmarks show that our method outperforms baselines across all budget scales, generalizes to unseen constraints beyond the training range, and achieves superior tool productivity without excessive token overhead. Our code is available at https://github.com/xwsun01/AnySearch.

LLM search agents increasingly rely on tools at inference time, but their trajectories are often constrained by hard limits on both tool calls and generated tokens. Under such dual budgets, better answers require not only stronger models, but also explicit control over which search action should receive the next budget unit and when the accumulated evidence is sufficient to commit a final answer. We study this problem in multi-hop question answering (QA) and formulate it as two-stage inference-time budget control. At search time, our controller assigns each feasible action a task-level Value-of-Information (VOI) score, defined as an operational estimate of marginal task value per unit budget under the current search state and remaining dual budget, and uses this score to choose among retrieval, decomposition, and answer commitment. After search, a selective evidence-grounded finalizer compares the trajectory answer with a refined candidate and rewrites only when the residual error appears to be a low-risk answer-form error. Across four multi-hop QA benchmarks, three LLM backbones, and four budget levels, the method yields positive aggregate gains over four audited baselines under the same hard dual-budget protocol. Ablations show that search-time budget control, especially budget-dependent penalty, provides the main performance gain, while answer-time control helps mainly when the retrieval path is already adequate. These results suggest that inference-time budget control for LLM search agents should govern both how budget is spent during search and how the final answer is committed.

Prompts tuned for accuracy often grow long, raising inference cost on every model call. The best accuracy-cost trade-off depends on the task and the budget, so prompt optimization is a search over the Pareto front of accuracy and prompt-token cost rather than for one prompt. The usual shortcut, collapsing the objectives into a weighted sum, fixes the trade-off weight before search and often recovers only a narrow region of the front, a failure we call scalarization collapse. We present CRAFT (Cost-aware Refinement And Front-aware Tuning), a Pareto-front prompt optimizer that treats target-LLM validation calls as the scarce resource and allocates them to candidates near the optimistic candidate front. Each round, complementary accuracy-oriented and cost-oriented generators propose edits, Pareto-gap acquisition spends the per-round validation budget, and NSGA-II retention keeps a spread-out population. Across six classification and reasoning benchmarks, CRAFT's retained fronts reach both high-accuracy and low-cost regions, while accuracy-only, cost-only, and weighted-sum baselines each concentrate in narrower regions. The accuracy-cost trade-off becomes a post-search choice, not a pre-search weight.