How to Train Your Deep Research Agent? Prompt, Reward, and Policy Optimization in Search-R1

Yinuo Xu, Shuo Lu, Jianjie Cheng, Meng Wang, Qianlong Xie, Xingxing Wang, Ran He, Jian Liang · Feb 23, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Deep Research agents tackle knowledge-intensive tasks through multi-round retrieval and decision-oriented generation. While reinforcement learning (RL) has been shown to improve performance in this paradigm, its contributions remain underexplored. To fully understand the role of RL, we conduct a systematic study along three decoupled dimensions: prompt template, reward function, and policy optimization. Our study reveals that: 1) the Fast Thinking template yields greater stability and better performance than the Slow Thinking template used in prior work; 2) the F1-based reward underperforms the EM due to training collapse driven by answer avoidance; this can be mitigated by incorporating action-level penalties, ultimately surpassing EM; 3) REINFORCE outperforms PPO while requiring fewer search actions, whereas GRPO shows the poorest stability among policy optimization methods. Building on these insights, we then introduce Search-R1++, a strong baseline that improves the performance of Search-R1 from 0.403 to 0.442 (Qwen2.5-7B) and 0.289 to 0.331 (Qwen2.5-3B). We hope that our findings can pave the way for more principled and reliable RL training strategies in Deep Research systems.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.