Recent advances in search agents have enabled large language models to tackle complex tasks by retrieving and synthesizing external information. However, existing search agents often lack search-state awareness, i.e., the ability to recognize what information has been obtained and what remains missing, leading to hallucinated reasoning and prematurely terminated search. To address this limitation, we propose Self-Assessment Reinforcement Learning (SARL), a reinforcement learning framework in which models learn to recognize their own search state during training and improve their search behavior accordingly, without requiring additional assessment at test time. SARL achieves this through a dual reward design that captures the corrective effect of each assessment while penalizing excessive reliance on it, jointly encouraging effective and efficient search trajectories. Under this setup, SARL achieves a 24.3% relative improvement over the strongest baseline, with average gains of 35.9% on multi-hop reasoning and 27.9% on deep research benchmarks against the strongest per-benchmark baselines. SARL further surpasses methods built on auxiliary supervision or multi-agent coordination, despite operating as a standalone RL framework with no inference-time scaffolding. Beyond final performance, SARL maintains training stability under extended search horizons, a regime where existing methods consistently degrade, enabling sustained gains as task complexity grows.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of search trajectories among Search-R1 ( Jin et al., 2025 ) , AutoRefine ( Shi et al., 2025 ) , and SARL (Ours). (a) Search-R1 hallucinates by assuming the University of Pennsylvania is a Catholic institution and terminates early. (b) AutoRefine fails to recognize that Saint Francis University does not satisfy the “oldest Catholic University” constraint, despite using a dedicated refinement tag. (c) SARL identifies the correct entity (Villanova University) by recognizing what has been obtained and what remains missing, issuing targeted queries to fill the gap.
Figure 2: Overview of the SARL framework. Top: A group of trajectories sampled from the policy model is scored under our custom reward (Eq. 2 ) and converted to group-relative advantages via GRPO ( Shao et al., 2024 ) . Bottom: Each trajectory ends with a structured self-assessment, which resolves to a COMPLETE or INCOMPLETE judgment; INCOMPLETE triggers trajectory revision, and rassess is determined by the resulting transition in answer correctness. Solid borders indicate trajectory components included in the loss; dashed borders are excluded.
Methods
Single-Hop QA
Multi-Hop QA
Deep Research
Avg.
NQ
TriviaQA
PopQA
HotpotQA
2Wiki
Musique
Bamboogle
GAIA
FRAMES
BC-Plus
w/o Retrieval
Direct Generation
0.251
0.523
0.158
0.265
0.245
0.080
0.208
0.039
0.090
0.037
0.190
SFT
0.181
0.452
0.161
0.217
0.212
0.048
0.126
0.053
0.062
0.003
0.152
R1
0.233
0.543
0.200
0.271
0.305
0.084
0.232
0.046
0.121
0.006
0.148
w/ Retrieval
Table 1: Performance comparison across benchmarks of varying complexity. NQ, 2Wiki, and BC-Plus denote Natural Questions, 2WikiMultihopQA, and BrowseComp-Plus, respectively. Bold indicates the best result per benchmark; underline indicates the second-best.
Figure 3: Search behavior of SARL compared with AutoRefine and ReSeek across training progress. Top: number of unique search queries across benchmarks. Bottom: document recall across benchmarks. SARL improves on both metrics over training, while baselines remain flat or decline.
Figure 4: Ablation of SARL’s reward components across training progress, reporting eval score, unique search cost, and document recall (left to right). Only the full configuration (Self-Assessment + Penalty + Reward) yields stable improvements.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Step
Variant
NQ
HotpotQA
ASearcher
Avg
100
Random
40.8
52.4
39.8
44.3
SARL
44.0
52.2
41.0
45.7
200
Random
44.8
52.8
42.2
46.6
SARL
49.2
56.0
48.6
51.3
339
Random
36.4
48.6
38.6
41.2
SARL
52.4
61.8
52.2
55.5
Appendix
Table 2: SARL vs. randomized assessment across training stages. SARL consistently outperforms the random baseline, with the gap widening over training.
Methods
Single-Hop QA
Multi-Hop QA
Deep Research
NQ
TriviaQA
PopQA
HotpotQA
2Wiki
Musique
Bamboogle
GAIA
FRAMES
BC-Plus
w/o Retrieval
Direct Generation
0.051 / 0.166
0.319 / 0.415
0.160 / 0.160
0.160 / 0.255
0.193 / 0.248
0.016 / 0.096
0.066 / 0.152
0.015 / 0.074
0.029 / 0.128
0.002 / 0.025
SFT
0.168 / 0.239
0.355 / 0.415
0.150 / 0.181
0.163 / 0.233
0.185 / 0.228
0.026 / 0.092
0.114 / 0.157
0.044 / 0.095
0.036 / 0.076
0.002 / 0.032
R1
0.217 / 0.295
0.429 / 0.498
0.188 / 0.230
0.209 / 0.286
0.277 / 0.308
0.050 / 0.119
0.200 / 0.270
0.046 / 0.090
0.121 / 0.122
0.006 / 0.032
w/ Retrieval
Appendix
Table 3: Performance comparison on single-hop QA, multi-hop QA, and deep research benchmarks. The results are presented in the format of Exact Match (EM) / F1 .
Figure 5: The training logs reveal a contrast in stability and learning efficacy between SARL and existing baselines. SARL achieves a stable, monotonic increase in both training and validation scores, reaching a peak validation score of approximately 0.56 by 325 steps. This indicates that its dual reward-penalty mechanism successfully internalizes search-state awareness without the model becoming over-reliant on explicit feedback.
Search-R1
SARL
Ratio
Total training time
22.1 hrs
51.3 hrs
2.3 ×
Avg. time / step
235 s
544 s
2.3 ×
Avg. trajectory length (tokens)
1,742
4,393
2.5 ×
Avg. performance
0.342
0.429
+25.4%
Appendix
Table 4: Training cost comparison between SARL and Search-R1.
Method
NQ
TriviaQA
PopQA
HotpotQA
2Wiki
Musique
Bamboogle
Avg.
RAG-R1-sq (Qwen2.5-7B-Inst)
0.429
0.599
0.477
0.492
0.520
0.187
0.440
0.449
RAG-R1-mq (Qwen2.5-7B-Inst)
0.423
0.608
0.479
0.495
0.563
0.192
0.440
0.457
MA-RAG (Llama3-8B-Inst)
0.525
0.826
–
0.403
0.318
–
–
–
MA-RAG (Llama3-70B-Inst)
0.581
0.854
–
0.507
0.431
–
–
–
SARL (Qwen2.5-7B, Ours)
0.508
0.762
0.527
0.614
0.645
0.272
0.548
0.554
Appendix
Table 5: Cross-paradigm comparison against RAG-R1 ( Tan et al., 2026 ) and MA-RAG ( Thang Nguyen, 2025 ) . “–” indicates the benchmark was not reported. Avg. is computed over the seven shared benchmarks.
Models
HotpotQA
2Wiki
Musique
Bamboogle
GAIA
FRAMES
BC-Plus
Search-R1 ( Jin et al., 2025 )
3.24
4.34
5.77
3.88
12.14
8.50
5.90
ASearcher ( Gao et al., 2025a )
3.58
3.32
4.07
3.70
5.77
5.26
5.05
AutoRefine ( Shi et al., 2025 )
0.79
0.79
0.55
0.90
0.12
0.42
0.01
ReSeek ( Li et al., 2025b )
8.78
13.79
16.01
8.52
21.90
15.81
10.50
SARL ( Ours )
7.94
8.62
9.16
8.16
11.28
10.13
8.23
Appendix
Table 6: Average number of search operations performed by different agents across multi-hop QA and deep research benchmarks. Results reflect the agents’ ability to sustain information seeking over long horizons.
Figure 6: Comparison of Search-State Awareness (SSA) levels across SARL and baseline frameworks. SARL achieves a Correct SSA of 42%, compared to 24% for Search-R1 and 17% for AutoRefine and ReSeek.
α
λ
Best
Final
0.2
0.5
52.2
51.7
0.5
0.5
55.0
54.8
0.8
0.5
56.3
55.5
0.8
0.2
55.5
42.6
0.8
0.8
54.5
54.5
Appendix
Table 7: Sensitivity of SARL to the assessment penalty ( α ) and reward ( λ ) coefficients. Best and Final denote the highest and end-of-training validation scores, respectively. Default configuration ( α=0.8,λ=0.5 ) yields the strongest result.
Table 8: Generalization of SARL across model family (left) and scale (right).
Recent advances in equipping Large Language Models (LLMs) with search tools and outcome-reward reinforcement learning (RL) have achieved new state-of-the-art results on open-domain QA tasks. However, we argue that current training paradigms harbor a critical vulnerability: they predominantly reward correct answers but fail to penalize fabricated ones when retrieval fails, thereby implicitly exacerbating hallucinations. To address this, we propose Abstention-Aware Reinforcement Learning (AWA-RL), which dynamically shapes the abstention reward utilizing the model's query-specific prior capabilities and continuous on-policy training observations. We also introduce a novel metric, RA-F1, to measure the capability-reliability trade-off. Compared to non-abstaining baselines, AWA-RL boosts absolute precision by up to 10.3% and overall RA-F1 by 2.9%, with only marginal sacrifice in raw accuracy. These results confirm that AWA-RL successfully yields highly capable and reliable search agents. The code, data, and model weights are publicly available at https://github.com/zfj1998/AWA-RL.
Agentic search enables LLMs to solve complex multi-hop questions through iterative reasoning and external search. Despite the effectiveness, these systems often suffer from a critical limitation in practice: agents fail to recognize their own knowledge boundaries, blindly triggering searches when internal knowledge suffices and failing to terminate search even when adequate evidence has been collected. The lack of self-awareness leads to severe over-search, incurring substantial inference latency and prohibitive computational cost. To this end, we propose SAAS, a novel RL framework designed to cultivate dynamic self-awareness that precisely regulates search behavior without compromising accuracy. SAAS introduces three key components: (i) a search boundary modeling mechanism, which identifies the search boundary under the evolving policy by contrasting search-disabled and search-enabled rollouts; (ii) a boundary-aware reward module, which translates this boundary awareness into trajectory-level penalties, suppressing unnecessary and redundant searches; and (iii) a stage-wise optimization strategy, which leverages a sequential curriculum to prioritize reasoning over search regularization, thereby avoiding reward hacking. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SAAS substantially reduces over-search, while maintaining accuracy. Our code and implementation details are released at https://github.com/XMUDeepLIT/SAAS.
Yunbo Tang, Chengyi Yang, Shiyu Liu +4
School of Informatics, Xiamen University · School of Artificial Intelligence, Jilin University
Search agents are often trained as policies over growing transcripts: the model must decide how to search while also remembering what it has seen, which evidence is useful, which constraints remain open, and which claims have actually been checked. We argue that this formulation puts too much routine state management inside the policy: reinforcement learning is forced to optimize both semantic search decisions and recoverable bookkeeping that the environment can maintain more reliably. We introduce Harness-1, a 20B search agent (retrieval subagent) trained with reinforcement learning inside a stateful search harness. The harness maintains environment-side working memory, including a candidate pool, an importance-tagged curated set, compact evidence links, verification records, compressed and deduplicated observations, and budget-aware context rendering. The policy retains the semantic decisions: what to search, which documents to keep or discard, what to verify, and when to stop. Across eight retrieval benchmarks spanning web, finance, patents, and multi-hop QA, Harness-1 achieves 0.730 average curated recall, outperforming the next strongest open search subagent by +11.4 points and remaining competitive with much larger frontier-model searchers. Its gains are especially strong on held-out transfer benchmarks, suggesting that reinforcement learning over explicit search state can produce retrieval behaviors that generalize beyond the training domains. Our code is available at https://github.com/pat-jj/harness-1.
Pengcheng Jiang, Zhiyi Shi, Kelly Hong +5
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign · †UC Berkeley · ✧Chroma