Nothing Left Behind: Finding Evidence from a Large Randomized Evaluation Corpus

Structured extraction of evidence from clinical trial publications underpins systematic reviews and clinical guidelines, yet large language models are adopted for it only hesitantly: their outputs are difficult to verify, their use commonly requires transmitting documents to proprietary services, and they do not improve from the corrections their users make. We present EviSearch, a multi-agent system that addresses these three obstacles. Three tool-augmented agents with complementary access to a publication extract every column of an evidence table, and a value is admitted only after an attribution verifier has read it on its cited page, so that every value carries a page-level attribution. Disagreement between independent agents directs human review to the cells most likely to be wrong, and reviewer feedback refines the schema definitions and a curation knowledge base without updating model parameters. The agentic system runs entirely offline on open-weight models. On a clinician-annotated benchmark of randomized-trial publications, EviSearch attributes 100.0% of its values, reaches 91.70% accuracy autonomously, and reaches 95.22% after review of 15.6% of cells, exceeding random review of the strongest single agent at equal effort by 1.75 points.

In many review workflows the verdict is the only thing retained. The passages behind it are not marked, because that annotation costs far more than recording the decision. We measure how much of that evidence a small language model can recover when it is post-trained on the verdicts alone, with no human evidence labels at any stage. On ContractNLI the human evidence spans are held out until evaluation. Matching the recorded verdict and agreeing with those spans are not the same thing: across six systems the two scores are only weakly related and rank the systems differently, so accuracy is a poor guide when the citations have to be reviewable. Label-only training on the bare verdict reaches accuracy 0.896 and span F1 0.564. Rejection sampling, which keeps a generated trace only when its verdict matches the record and then picks one by an automatic source-grounding score, reaches 0.797 and 0.556, against 0.747 and 0.493 before training. Verbatim citation rises from 0.597 to 0.729 under label-only training and to 0.701 under rejection sampling. One seed on one corpus cannot say which method is better, but both improve the evidence without anyone annotating it.

Search agents extend large reasoning models with multi-round access to external knowledge, yet most existing systems largely conflate retrieving evidence with consuming it. Retrieved documents are commonly incorporated according to fixed or rank-based policies, despite the fact that evidence utility is conditioned on the agent's current reasoning state. Consequently, a lower-ranked candidate may be critical for the current step, while a higher-ranked candidate may provide redundant, irrelevant, or misleading information. We formulate this overlooked problem as evidence admission, which asks, at each search step, which retrieved candidates should be allowed to enter the agent's evolving reasoning context. To enable such selective control, we introduce SEEDS (Selective Evidence Entry During Search), a preview-guided evidence admission framework for search agents. SEEDS first exposes lightweight previews of retrieved candidates and then lets the agent jointly determine which candidates and how many should be fully inspected, conditioned on its current reasoning state. Unlike fixed or adaptive prefix policies, SEEDS can select arbitrary subsets with flexible cardinality, and it can be instantiated directly with an existing reasoning agent or further optimized through learning. Across nine knowledge-intensive QA benchmarks under both local corpus and live web search, SEEDS consistently improves search effectiveness while substantially reducing full-evidence consumption. Experimental analyses show that SEEDS more effectively selects useful candidates beyond the corresponding retrieval prefix. These results establish evidence admission as a complementary dimension of agentic search, separating what information is retrieved from what information is ultimately allowed to shape reasoning.