HALT: Verification-Aware Stopping for Retrieval-Augmented Search Agents

Multi-round retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) must decide when to stop searching as evidence accumulates. Because the deployed policy is determined by the first STOP on each trajectory, this is a sequential selection problem rather than an independent state-classification task. We adapt S2G-RAG's structured sufficiency-and-gap judgment to a frozen Search-R1 pipeline and train a Qwen3.5-2B judge on 3,009 states from 900 disjoint HotpotQA questions. Search-R1's reasoner, retriever, corpus, prompt, and search budget remain unchanged, while the judge checkpoint and stopping threshold are selected on grouped validation and frozen before confirmatory evaluation. On the confirmatory test set, the resulting policy reduces retrieval calls by 77 (3.70%) relative to Native Search-R1, while Official Exact Match decreases by 0.625 percentage points. Thus, the trained S2G-style structured judge reduces retrieval while broadly preserving answer accuracy. The result does not imply unchanged or improved accuracy, safe stopping, or lower total inference cost.

While search agents demonstrate impressive capabilities in multi-step question answering, their robustness to poor-quality evidence remains under-explored. This phenomenon occurs rarely in realistic benchmarks but can lead to dramatic failure in real life applications. Therefore in this study we propose DeepStress, a stress testing framework that controls the frequency of challenging evidence by replacing the retrieval module of search agents with a controlled synthetic environment. We use this framework to control three dimensions that can affect document reliability: trustworthiness, relevance, and factuality. Testing several search agents on HotpotQA and BrowseCompPlus, we demonstrate that agents exhibit substantial differences in their ability to handle unreliable information and propose new metrics that better document systems outcomes as well as the interactions between conflicting parametric and retrieved knowledge.

Deep search agents answer difficult information-seeking questions by iteratively issuing search queries to gather supporting evidence, but it remains unclear whether and how greater search effort leads to better answers. We study these questions through a trajectory-level diagnosis of long-horizon search agents. Using human-annotated document-level relevance judgments, we evaluate the evidence retrieved at each search step and separate two stages of agent behavior: what evidence an agent retrieves and how effectively it uses that evidence. This distinction further allows us to decompose failures into retrieval gaps, where the necessary evidence is never found, and utilization gaps, where relevant evidence is retrieved but not used correctly. With the retrieval model and evaluation harness held fixed, we compare six agents on BrowseComp-Plus and further validate our findings on BrowseComp with an open-web search API. Across settings, we find that search effort and answer quality are only weakly aligned. Answer accuracy is better correlated with the quality of retrieved evidence, especially cumulative retrieval recall, than with the number of searches or the amount of context consumed. Useful evidence often appears early in the trajectory, yet agents tend to continue searching, producing a long tail of low-yield retrieval steps. At the query level, exploratory reformulations remain useful, but the best-performing agents issue far fewer redundant queries. Overall, by systematically characterizing the search behavior and failure modes of long-horizon search agents, this work points to practical directions for building better deep research systems, including stronger query formulation, more effective evidence selection and context management, and stopping criteria based on whether sufficient supporting evidence has been retrieved.