DeepSearch LLM agents repeatedly search and carry retrieved sources into subsequent reasoning steps. This expanding context increases token consumption and latency, although many results do not contribute to later reasoning. We propose Query-Relevant Attention Entropy (QRAE), an online context compression method that uses sparse evidence-assessment heads to decide which intact retrieved chunks should persist across reasoning steps. It scores bounded candidate batches through paired prefills: a query-free control suppresses shared attention responses, while normalized entropy measures the breadth of the positive response within each chunk. High-scoring chunks enter a persistent evidence whitelist and are included in the reasoning context. Uncertain chunks remain outside the reasoning context but are retained in a candidate cache, where they can be retrieved for later reevaluation. QRAE requires neither an additional generative compression pass nor modification of the attention operator. Across multiple DeepSearch benchmarks and reasoning models, QRAE improves task success by an average of 2.35 percentage points and reduces end-to-end latency and reported token usage by an average of 30% and 45%, respectively. These benefits generalize to a model with nearly 100B parameters.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of QRAE for context compression in DeepSearch agents. (a) Retrieved chunks pass through QRAE before the LLM updates its hypothesis and takes the next action. (b) The QRAE signal is derived from the attention distributions of the model’s query-relevant heads. (c) Chunks with the highest running-mean scores in the candidate cache enter the whitelist and the reasoning context; deferred chunks remain in the candidate cache.
Figure 2: Construction of the QRAE signal. (a) Offline localization selects the model heads with the highest attention mass on answer tokens in the input. (b) During online scoring, prefills with and without the query yield signed attention differences. (c) Positive attention differences are first normalized within each chunk. Normalized entropy is then computed and averaged across the selected heads.
Dataset
Metric
DeepSearch
Lingua-2
ACON
Rerank
QRHead
SideQuest
QRAE
No comp.
Compression baselines
Ours
BrowseComp- Plus
Succ. (%) ↑
13.8
14.3
12.1
14.7
11.6
10.6
17.2
Time (s) ↓
29.5
28.8
50.0
35.6
45.1
24.3
20.5
Tokens ↓
177k
171k
98k
148k
149k
66k
54k
XBench- DeepSearch
Succ. (%) ↑
38.0
43.0
40.0
41.0
35.0
36.0
44.0
Time (s) ↓
276.0
245.3
324.8
213.6
357.5
167.2
150.4
Table 1: QRAE effectiveness in DeepSearch agents with DeepDiver-7B across four benchmarks. Results report task success, end-to-end time, and total processed tokens from one representative run per benchmark. Bold and underlined values denote the best and second-best results, respectively.
Method
OpenResearcher-30B
OpenPangu-2.0-Flash-92B
Success (%) ↑
Time (s) ↓
Tokens ↓
Success (%) ↑
Time (s) ↓
Tokens ↓
DeepSearch
53.2
151.0
1981k
54.9
308.6
1077k
LLMLingua-2
52.1
154.7
2037k
54.2
304.5
1057k
ACON
49.4
188.1
842k
50.1
429.8
879k
Rerank
50.7
162.0
2157k
54.3
344.7
970k
QRHead
51.1
189.3
1771k
53.8
393.8
982k
Table 2: Cross-model evaluation of QRAE on BrowseComp-Plus, reporting task success, end-to-end time, and total processed tokens. Token counts for OpenPangu include inputs only. Bold and underlined values denote the best and second-best results, respectively.
Figure 3: Global layer–head localization scores for DeepDiver-7B, computed from attention to answer-bearing spans. Heads are selected on HotpotQA (a) and validated on BrowseComp-Plus (b) and XBench-DeepSearch (c), neither of which is used for head selection.
Model
5 chunks
20 chunks
AUC
Recall@1
Recall@3
AUC
Recall@1
Recall@10
LiteResearcher-4B
76.6
48.3%
76.6%
81.8
35.2%
83.2%
DeepDiver-7B
83.2
54.6%
83.2%
84.4
44.6%
88.7%
WebSeer-14B
84.1
53.9%
84.5%
85.1
47.8%
89.2%
OpenResearcher-30B
90.3
74.1%
90.5%
89.6
57.4%
93.0%
OpenPangu-2.0-Flash-92B
92.5
83.8%
93.4%
92.2
66.2%
96.8%
Table 3: Cross-model QRAE scoring on BrowseComp-Plus with 5- and 20-chunk candidate sets. AUC denotes AUROC; all metrics are percentages and higher is better.
Variant
5 chunks
20 chunks
AUC
Recall@1
Recall@3
AUC
Recall@1
Recall@10
QRAE (full)
83.2
54.6%
83.2%
84.4
44.6%
88.7%
w/o query-free subtraction
79.6
48.6%
80.9%
78.8
34.2%
84.5%
Attention sum
75.0
44.7%
79.5%
81.3
32.6%
80.0%
Table 4: Scoring ablations on BrowseComp-Plus with DeepDiver-7B. Candidate sets and retained-chunk budgets are shared across variants. AUC denotes AUROC; all metrics are percentages and higher is better.
Variant
BrowseComp-Plus
XBench-DeepSearch
Succ. (%) ↑
Time (s) ↓
Tokens ↓
Succ. (%) ↑
Time (s) ↓
Tokens ↓
QRAE (full)
17.2
20.5
54
44.0
150.4
117
w/o query-free subtraction
15.8
24.1
73
42.0
192.8
186
Attention sum
14.6
27.3
92
42.0
181.6
177
Current-search filtering
14.9
30.2
129
41.0
232.3
225
Table 5: Agent-level component ablations on BrowseComp-Plus and XBench-DeepSearch. Success is in percent, time in seconds, and tokens in thousands. End-to-end costs include the evaluator calls required by each variant.
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
KH
Selected layer–head pairs
LiteResearcher-4B
2
L20H15, L18H15
DeepDiver-7B
2
L18H22, L17H0
WebSeer-14B
2
L36H21, L47H33
OpenResearcher-30B
3
L26H9, L26H25, L19H18
OpenPangu-2.0-Flash-92B
5
L45H36, L39H24, L39H30, L39H32, L36H41
Appendix
Table 6: Fixed evidence-assessment heads. Layer and head indices are zero-based.
Setting
Value or rule
Calibration
100 HotpotQA trajectories; one answer-containing input each
Head set
Fixed per model; Table 6
Batch size K
Agent’s configured search-result count per query
Chunking
Agent’s search splitting rules and length limits
Trigger
Candidate count at least K ; at most once per query update
Batch selection
K candidates with the fewest prior scores
Appendix
Table 7: Implementation settings shared with the agent or fixed by QRAE.
Benchmark
Role
Evaluation set
BrowseComp-Plus
End-to-end and evidence ranking
830 questions
XBench-DeepSearch
End-to-end and head transfer
2510 release; 100 questions
FRAMES
End-to-end multi-hop QA
Test split; 824 questions
SimpleQA
End-to-end factual QA
Original test set; 4,326 questions
HotpotQA
Offline localization and evidence analysis
100 sampled trajectories
Appendix
Table 8: Datasets and evaluation coverage. All questions in the four end-to-end benchmarks are evaluated.
Model
Official checkpoint
DeepDiver-7B
openpangu/openPangu-Embedded-7B-DeepDiver
OpenResearcher-30B
OpenResearcher/OpenResearcher-30B-A3B
OpenPangu-2.0-Flash-92B
openpangu/openPangu-2.0-Flash
LiteResearcher-4B
simplex-ai-inc/LiteResearcher-4B
WebSeer-14B
99hgz/WebSeer-14b
Appendix
Table 9: Official checkpoint identifiers, linked to their model cards.
Model
Max. output tokens per call
Max. interaction rounds
DeepDiver-7B
256
50
OpenResearcher-30B
8,192
50
OpenPangu-2.0-Flash-92B
4,096
50
Appendix
Table 10: Generation and interaction budgets for the end-to-end agents. Within each model–benchmark setting, all compared methods use the same budgets.
Setting
Retrieval source
Top- k
Search snippet
BrowseComp-Plus: DeepDiver
BM25, official index
5
First 512 tokens per document; Qwen3-0.6B tokenizer
BrowseComp-Plus: OpenResearcher
Official dense-retrieval service
10
Query-highlighted summary, at most 180 characters
BrowseComp-Plus: OpenPangu
BM25, official index
10
At most 256 tokens per document
XBench-DeepSearch
Serper web search
10
API snippet, truncated to 512 tokens if longer
FRAMES
Serper web search
10
API snippet, truncated to 512 tokens if longer
SimpleQA
Serper web search
10
API snippet, truncated to 512 tokens if longer
Appendix
Table 11: Retrieval settings. All result counts are per query. Token and character limits apply to snippet text before compression.
Method
Configuration
DeepSearch
Uncompressed retrieved context under the matched agent and retrieval budgets.
QRAE
ρ=0.5 by default; fixed heads in Table 6 ; Search-aligned K and M=⌈K/2⌉ ; online paired prefills; no evaluator generation.
LLMLingua-2
microsoft/llmlingua-2-xlm-roberta-large-meetingbank ; token retention rate 0.5 on each query’s returned snippet text, before it enters the agent context; source metadata and snippet boundaries are protected.
ACON
Observation-compression variant with GPT-4.1-mini and the published observation-compression guideline, conditioned on the task and interaction history. Compress a query’s search observation when its snippet text exceeds 400 tokens, targeting 50% of its original text length; retain only the refined observation and leave the existing history unchanged.
Rerank
Qwen/Qwen3-Reranker-0.6B , using its query–document relevance prompt and yes/no score. Rerank the same K retrieved snippets and keep the top ⌈K/2⌉ ; use the snippet limits above without retrieving additional candidates.
QRHead
QRRetriever scoring on the corresponding frozen reasoning model: 16 heads for DeepDiver and 32 for OpenResearcher and OpenPangu. Average query-token attention mass over selected heads, subtract the score for the null query N/A , and retain the top ⌈K/2⌉ snippets per query.
Appendix
Table 12: Compression configurations under matched agent and retrieval budgets. Retention targets apply to search-derived content.
Model
Hardware
Precision
DeepDiver-7B
4× NVIDIA RTX 4090
BF16
OpenResearcher-30B
4× NVIDIA RTX 4090
BF16
OpenPangu-2.0-Flash-92B
4× NVIDIA H200
BF16
Appendix
Table 13: Hardware and precision for the end-to-end comparisons. Execution settings are matched across methods within each model–benchmark setting.
Metric
BrowseComp-Plus
XBench-DeepSearch
Delayed admissions per trajectory
4.36
11.17
Annotated evidence among delayed admissions per trajectory
1.31
2.69
Mean admission delay (steps)
2.00
2.10
Trajectories with delayed admission
745/830 (89.8%)
89/100 (89.0%)
Appendix
Table 14: Delayed admission and recovery of annotated evidence in the original compression runs. Evidence counts are a subset of all delayed admissions.
Example
Initially deferred
Reassessed and admitted
Final answer
Question 66: roast duck
Step 3; ranks (6,6)
Step 5; ranks (2,5)
Peking duck (correct)
Question 75: The Voice of China
Step 5; ranks (14,12)
Step 8; ranks (2,1)
Li Wei (correct)
Appendix
Table 15: Two XBench-DeepSearch examples of evidence deferred and later admitted. Rank pairs give the respective ranks assigned by the two selected heads; smaller ranks are better.
Figure 4: Cross-model evidence-assessment head localization. Red boxes mark the annotated heads. The horizontal and vertical axes denote head and layer indices, respectively, both starting from zero.
Model
5 chunks
20 chunks
AUC
Recall@1
Recall@3
AUC
Recall@1
Recall@10
DeepDiver
83.2±0.5
(54.6±0.4)%
(83.2±0.1)%
84.4±0.2
(44.6±0.6)%
(88.7±0.1)%
Appendix
Table 16: Input-order sensitivity of QRAE scoring with DeepDiver-7B on BrowseComp-Plus. Entries show the reference score from Table 3 ± STD across input permutations. All scores use the percentage scale; STDs are in percentage points.
Dataset
Method
Success (%) ↑
Time (s) ↓
Tokens (k) ↓
BrowseComp- Plus
DeepSearch
13.7±0.5
29.6±0.3
177±19
QRAE
17.4±0.3
20.6±0.1
55±4
XBench- DeepSearch
DeepSearch
38.4±3.1
265.8±9.4
311±24
QRAE
44.6±1.8
152.3±7.7
120±15
FRAMES
DeepSearch
40.9±1.1
160.2±5.6
138±14
QRAE
42.7±1.2
91.8±3.7
92±10
Appendix
Table 17: Comparison of DeepSearch and QRAE over five paired seeds (41–45) per benchmark, with every run covering all evaluation trajectories. Entries show mean ± sample STD; success is in percent, time in seconds, and tokens in thousands.
Target
Scope
β=0
2
3
4
5
6
Chunk
Prefill
11
11
12
15
16
19
Chunk
All
11
11
12
14
16
19
Token
Prefill
11
11
12
12
14
15
Token
All
11
11
12
13
14
16
Appendix
Table 18: Success (%) under attention intervention. “Prefill” applies the patch only during prefill; “all” retains it through decoding.
Dataset
Method
Time (s)
Tokens (k)
Reasoning
Tool
Compression
Input
Output
Compression
BrowseComp- Plus
DeepSearch
28.2
1.3
–
175
2.4
–
QRAE
17.3
0.9
2.3
48
1.3
4.9
XBench- DeepSearch
DeepSearch
144.3
131.7
–
314
4.6
–
QRAE
41.1
98.6
10.7
77
2.8
37
Appendix
Table 19: Per-trajectory time and token breakdown for DeepSearch and QRAE. Time is measured in seconds and token counts in thousands (k). Input and output refer to the reasoning agent; compression costs are listed separately. Dashes indicate no compression component.
Head set
5 chunks
20 chunks
AUC
Recall@1
Recall@3
AUC
Recall@1
Recall@10
QRAE (full)
83.2
54.6%
83.2%
84.4
44.6%
88.7%
Random heads
45.7
9.9%
38.8%
53.0
5.3%
40.2%
Heads selected by QRHead
68.3
24.5%
70.0%
70.4
13.9%
63.3%
Appendix
Table 20: Head-selection comparison on BrowseComp-Plus with DeepDiver-7B. All head sets use the same QRAE scoring rule. AUC denotes AUROC; all metrics are percentages and higher is better.
Deep research agents answer complex questions through repeated search. They rely on a harness that runs their tool calls and returns evidence to their context. This creates a trade-off: Search works best over long passages, which give enough context for reliable semantic matching. But the returned evidence should be short, because every observation stays in the agent's context for the rest of the trajectory. We introduce CORE, a training-free harness that combines coarse-to-fine search with context management. CORE retrieves passages with a dense retriever. It then reuses the token-level similarities from a late-interaction reranker to return only the most relevant snippet from each passage. Context management lets the agent expand the context around sources it has already retrieved and suppresses repeated snippets. In controlled closed-search comparisons with the Tongyi DeepResearch and OpenResearcher harnesses, CORE achieves state-of-the-art answer accuracy and evidence recall across three agent models and three benchmarks (BrowseComp-Plus, BrowseComp-Wikipedia and BrowseComp-Plus-CM), on corpora containing up to 553M documents.
Hoang Tran Vuong, Ngoc Quan Pham, Hung Bui +2
Qualcomm AI Research* · Qualcomm Vietnam Company Limited
Efficient context compression is critical for retrieval-augmented question answering in resource-constrained settings, where long retrieved contexts increase latency, memory use, and LLM reader cost. We propose a lightweight encoder-only framework for query-driven sentence pruning that preserves answer-critical evidence while aggressively reducing irrelevant context. Our method learns marginal contribution scores for sentences using counterfactual training signals and optimizes a contrastive ranking objective that separates critical evidence from noncritical context. Our approach scores all sentences from a single full-context encoding, enabling fast inference with low computational overhead. Experiments show that it maintains accuracy comparable to the strongest baseline while using 3.7× less peak memory and achieving nearly 3× lower compression latency, demonstrating an effective quality--efficiency trade-off for practical resource-constrained deployment.
Thao Do, Dinh Phu Tran, An Vo +2
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Daejeon 34141, South Korea
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) improves knowledge-intensive generation by conditioning language models on retrieved documents, but processing these documents becomes increasingly expensive as retrieval depth grows. Soft context compression reduces this cost by encoding documents into compact continuous representations that can be precomputed and reused across queries. However, many existing methods train compressed models by distilling from a full-context teacher. When the teacher is wrong, such distillation can reinforce its errors, while teacher imitation provides no direct signal for improving beyond the teacher. We propose DEX-Comp, a two-stage training recipe that separates reliable imitation from targeted exploration. Pure Distillation learns only from teacher-correct questions to mitigate error propagation, while Hard Exploration applies outcome-based reinforcement learning to teacher-failed questions to directly optimize answer correctness. Across five open-domain QA benchmarks and retrieval depths from top-5 to top-30, DEX-Comp at 16× compression outperforms all evaluated compression baselines and surpasses the untuned full-context RAG model in average accuracy, while reducing time-to-first-token by 4.4×--23.7×. Evaluations across additional datasets and backbones further demonstrate its generalization.
Shuyu Guo, Shuo Zhang, Zhaochun Ren
Shandong University Qingdao, China · Bloomberg London, United Kingdom · Leiden University Leiden, The Netherlands