Detecting an Effect Is Not Learning to Act on It: A Reward-SNR Floor for LLM Acquisition Agents

Reinforcement learning (RL) search agents commonly model retrieval as free-form natural-language query generation and optimize multi-turn interactions using final-answer rewards. Current studies mainly improve training with denser or more structured credit signals, but rarely examine whether retrieval is properly formulated at the policy-environment interface. We observe pronounced retrieval aliasing during Search-R1 training: rollouts for the same question continue to generate distinct query strings, yet their accumulated evidence sets increasingly overlap. We call this phenomenon retrieval-equivalence collapse; in this regime, trajectories approach utility equivalence with respect to retrieval decisions, leaving within-group returns with little effective retrieval contrast. To address this problem, we propose Harness-G, a graph-structured retrieval framework that redesigns this interface. It reformulates free-form query generation as finite action selection: the policy selects an evidence sentence or entity, or chooses to answer, while the environment constructs the menu, tracks retrieval state, and validates and executes each choice. This interface reduces linguistic aliasing and makes same-state alternatives directly comparable. Building on this interface, we introduce Structured Non-myopic Credit (SNC), which uses a frozen answer scorer to compare the selected action with its alternatives and assigns downstream gains to the earlier actions that enabled them. Across six QA benchmarks, Harness-G achieves the highest average F1 at both evaluated model scales, outperforming the strongest baseline, Graph-R1, by 10.74 points at 1.5B and 3.98 points at 3B.

Dense per-step supervision is the standard remedy for sparse-reward long-horizon LLM agents: reward the policy for predicting its next observation, which looks provably safe under potential-based shaping. Published prediction-reward and auxiliary-loss variants report both successes and instabilities; we supply the controlled account: 74 preregistered arms dissect one fixed prediction signal under GRPO across ALFWorld, WebShop, a synthetic POMDP, and Qwen3-1.7B/4B/8B, varying only the delivery mechanism. (1) Every run sustaining this difference-form reward under untouched std normalization (no filtering, dynamic-sampling, or decoupling mitigations) collapses: eleven runs across scales, coefficients, group sizes, and groupings (the floor-bound synthetic environment stalls instead); ALFWorld runs end in an absorbing state (prediction accuracy -> 1.0, success -> 0): the optimizer builds the "dark room". The algebra is one line: in all-fail groups z-scoring cancels the shaping coefficient; removing only std normalization restores baseline parity. (2) A signal's danger is set by its within-group variance trajectory, plus hackability as a second axis; it retrodicts every reward-channel collapse and survives preregistered prospective tests. (3) The same signal as a teacher-forced auxiliary loss is harmless on ALFWorld at 4B, but the gain is not the signal's: content-free placebos as a class match or beat gold at both matched seeds (s0: 78.8 vs 68.6; s42: 67.9 vs 57.9); the auxiliary update is the regularizer. (4) At 8B the recipe turns bistable: gold full-weight locks two of three seeds; every content-free or reduced-weight arm stays healthy. No ALFWorld or WebShop reward-channel variant measurably beats its matched-normalization baseline and no gold signal measurably outperforms its content-free placebo: the delivery channel, not the content, decides; which channel is safe is regime-dependent.

Search-augmented language models can use external evidence to compensate for limitations in parametric knowledge, but search is not uniformly beneficial: models may call search for questions they can already answer, or rely on noisy evidence when correction, clarification, or abstention would be more appropriate. We formulate this as an instance-level search-routing problem: deciding whether search is needed to improve task success relative to a no-search execution. To derive supervision, we compare no-search and forced-search outcomes for the same question and construct an oracle over NO SEARCH, SEARCH, and UNSOLVED based on task-specific success. Using this oracle as both an evaluation criterion and a learning signal, we train search-routing policies with supervised fine-tuning and preference optimization, improving routing macro-F1 on oracle-eligible examples from 0.7082 to 0.8235 for Gemma E2B and from 0.7053 to 0.8365 for Qwen3.5-4B. Further analysis shows that the learned policies reduce model-specific routing failures: Gemma primarily learns no-search restraint, while Qwen further reduces missed search; residual UNSOLVED cases reveal heterogeneous bottlenecks involving model capacity, retrieval budget, evidence use, and policy behavior.