Deep search agents solve knowledge-intensive tasks through long-horizon, multi-turn interactions, where assigning credit to individual search decisions is fundamentally difficult. Outcome-based reinforcement learning provides only a single terminal reward shared across an entire trajectory. Recent process-supervision methods aim to assign credit at finer granularity, but they typically anchor credit to either surface-level trajectory states or model-internal signals, both of which become unreliable in deep search where observations are heterogeneous and retrieved contexts are long and noisy. We propose KnowGPO, a reinforcement learning framework that aligns trajectories by the task-relevant knowledge they have acquired rather than by their surface observations. For each query, KnowGPO decomposes the information required to derive the answer into atomic knowledge conditions, and represents the state of a trajectory at each step by the subset of conditions it has satisfied. Trajectories sharing the same knowledge state are grouped for within-group comparison, and the incremental knowledge gain between consecutive steps serves as an environment-grounded process reward. Experiments on Xbench, BrowseComp-ZH, and GAIA show KnowGPO consistently outperforms outcome-only (GRPO) and process-supervision baselines (GiGPO, IGPO) by 3.8 to 4.2 points, with our 8B model rivaling or exceeding most 32B open-source systems.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of credit assignment in deep search agents. Left: GRPO uses episode-level advantages from terminal rewards ( R1 , R2 , R3 ) without intermediate feedback. Middle: GiGPO matches environment states ( s~ ) but suffers from severe fragmentation under heterogeneous observations. Right: KnowGPO abstracts heterogeneous states into knowledge states ( si,t ) and computes step-level advantages from incremental knowledge gains ( ri,t ).
Figure 2: Overview of the KnowGPO framework. Left: Knowledge condition construction via a two-stage pipeline, illustrated with an example. Right: Rollout trajectories are grouped by matched knowledge states; step-level advantages are computed from incremental knowledge gains via group-relative comparisons.
Model
BrowseComp-ZH
GAIA
Advanced Agents with Proprietary Data
MiniMax-M2.1
47.8
64.3
DeepSeek-V3.1
49.2
63.1
DeepSeek-R1
26.3
16.5
GLM-4.5
37.5
66.0
Kimi-K2.5
62.3
–
Table 1: Performance comparison on BrowseComp-ZH and GAIA. Among RL-based methods, best results are in bold , and second-best are underlined .
Model
Xbench-2505
Xbench-2510
Advanced Agents with Proprietary Data
MiniMax-M2.1
68.7
43.0
DeepSeek-V3.2
78.0
55.7
GLM-4.7
72.0
52.3
Kimi-K2.5
–
46.0
Claude-4-Sonnet
64.6
–
Table 2: Performance comparison on Xbench-2505 and Xbench-2510. Among RL-based methods, best results are in bold , and second-best are underlined .
Figure 3: Training curves comparing GRPO, GiGPO, IGPO, and KnowGPO on our Qwen3-8B-SFT.
Model
Xben05
Xben10
BC-ZH
GAIA
Qwen3-8b-SFT
39.0
29.0
30.1
31.1
+KnowGPO ( ω=0 )
45.0
28.0
34.0
34.0
+KnowGPO ( ω=0.3 )
48.0
36.0
38.8
40.2
+KnowGPO ( ω=0.5 )
47.0
35.0
36.3
37.9
Table 3: Performance of KnowGPO with different ω .
Method
Xben05
Xben10
BC-ZH
GAIA
GRPO (Base)
46.0
34.0
32.9
35.0
+ Δ KG
47.0
34.0
34.6
37.8
KnowGPO (w/ Gt )
45.0
35.0
32.8
36.8
KnowGPO
48.0
36.0
38.8
40.2
Table 4: Ablation study on reward design and grouping mechanisms. (1) GRPO with outcome rewards, (2) GRPO with incremental knowledge gain, (3) KnowGPO with discounted future returns, and (4) KnowGPO.
Metric
Obs
Act
Know
ESR ↑ (%)
51.8
79.4
97.8
SR ↓ (%)
79.4
72.0
19.0
MeanNG
4.85
24.62
21.28
Cross ↑
3.83
4.85
4.66
ngroups
32,267
14,902
4,872
Table 5: Comparison of grouping quality across three state anchors.
Method
Both Fail
Both Pass
GRPO-only
Know-only
GRPO
11.39
7.03
9.51
11.55
KnowGPO
10.85
6.33
10.36
9.83
Table 6: Average search turns across outcome subsets. Both Fail: queries where both methods fail; Both Pass: both succeed; GRPO-only: only GRPO succeeds; KnowGPO-only: only KnowGPO succeeds.
Figure 4: Per-iteration training time breakdown. Blue bars represent shared RL operations common to both GRPO and KnowGPO; red bars represent KnowGPO-specific components.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Regr. ↓
Parse
Agree.
DeepSeek-v3.2
0.052
0.987
0.947
Gemini-2.5-Flash-Lite
0.057
0.971
0.746
DeepSeek-v3.1-Terminus
0.057
0.924
0.835
DeepSeek-v3.1
0.052
0.921
0.911
GPT-4o-mini
0.065
0.896
0.614
Appendix
Table 7: Verifier comparison on 200 held-out pairs. Best in bold . Regression measures monotonicity violations; Parse measures valid JSON output rate; Agreement measures consistency with manual annotations.
Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China · Key Laboratory of Data Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, MOE, China · Ant Group, Beijing, China +2