Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Erase to Improve: Erasable Reinforcement Learning for Search-Augmented LLMs

Ziliang Wang, Kang An, Xuhui Zheng, Faqiang Qian, Weikun Zhang, Cijun Ouyang, Jialu Cai, Yuhang Wang, Yichao Wu · Oct 1, 2025 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Moderate trust

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

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

Evidence quality

Moderate

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

While search-augmented large language models (LLMs) exhibit impressive capabilities, their reliability in complex multi-hop reasoning remains limited. This limitation arises from three fundamental challenges: decomposition errors, where tasks are incorrectly broken down; retrieval missing, where key evidence fails to be retrieved; and reasoning errors, where flawed logic propagates through the reasoning chain. A single failure in any of these stages can derail the final answer. We propose Erasable Reinforcement Learning (ERL), a novel framework that transforms fragile reasoning into a robust process. ERL explicitly identifies faulty steps, erases them, and regenerates reasoning in place, preventing defective logic from propagating through the reasoning chain. This targeted correction mechanism turns brittle reasoning into a more resilient process. Models trained with ERL, termed ESearch, achieve substantial improvements on HotpotQA, MuSiQue, 2Wiki, and Bamboogle, with the 3B model achieving +8.48% EM and +11.56% F1, and the 7B model achieving +5.38% EM and +7.22% F1 over previous state-of-the-art(SOTA) results. These findings suggest that erasable reinforcement learning provides a powerful paradigm shift for robust multi-step reasoning in LLMs.

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 benchmark-and-metrics comparison anchor.

Main weakness

No major weakness surfaced.

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

25/100 • 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 55%

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.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"While search-augmented large language models (LLMs) exhibit impressive capabilities, their reliability in complex multi-hop reasoning remains limited."

Evaluation Modes

strong

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"While search-augmented large language models (LLMs) exhibit impressive capabilities, their reliability in complex multi-hop reasoning remains limited."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"While search-augmented large language models (LLMs) exhibit impressive capabilities, their reliability in complex multi-hop reasoning remains limited."

Benchmarks / Datasets

strong

HotpotQA

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"Models trained with ERL, termed ESearch, achieve substantial improvements on HotpotQA, MuSiQue, 2Wiki, and Bamboogle, with the 3B model achieving +8.48% EM and +11.56% F1, and the 7B model achieving +5.38% EM and +7.22% F1 over previous state-of-the-art(SOTA) results."

Reported Metrics

strong

F1

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"While search-augmented large language models (LLMs) exhibit impressive capabilities, their reliability in complex multi-hop reasoning remains limited."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: Long Horizon
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Moderate
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

HotpotQA

Reported Metrics

f1

Research Brief

Metadata summary

While search-augmented large language models (LLMs) exhibit impressive capabilities, their reliability in complex multi-hop reasoning remains limited.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • While search-augmented large language models (LLMs) exhibit impressive capabilities, their reliability in complex multi-hop reasoning remains limited.
  • This limitation arises from three fundamental challenges: decomposition errors, where tasks are incorrectly broken down; retrieval missing, where key evidence fails to be retrieved; and reasoning errors, where flawed logic propagates through the reasoning chain.
  • A single failure in any of these stages can derail the final answer.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics, Long-horizon tasks) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We propose Erasable Reinforcement Learning (ERL), a novel framework that transforms fragile reasoning into a robust process.
  • Models trained with ERL, termed ESearch, achieve substantial improvements on HotpotQA, MuSiQue, 2Wiki, and Bamboogle, with the 3B model achieving +8.48% EM and +11.56% F1, and the 7B model achieving +5.38% EM and +7.22% F1 over previous…

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: HotpotQA

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: f1

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.