Search-G1: Grounded Search Agents via Representation-Based Intrinsic Rewards
Source
Cheng Ruoxi, Ma Haoxuan, Zhang Hongyi, Zhang Junming, Duan Ranjie, Xia Qiaolin, Wang Hao, Lu Yu, Shi Haibo, Ma Xingjun
Author
Cheng Ruoxi, Ma Haoxuan, Zhang Hongyi, Zhang Junming, Duan Ranjie, Xia Qiaolin, Wang Hao, Lu Yu, Shi Haibo, Ma Xingjun
Published
Terms in this piece · Glossary
LLM — A large language model — the neural network behind tools like Claude and ChatGPT, trained on huge amounts of text to predict what comes next.
grounding — Tying a model's answers to checkable sources — retrieved documents, live data, tool results — instead of letting it answer from memory alone.
inference — Running a trained model to get answers — the phase where AI is actually used, as opposed to trained.
Why it matters
Teams training or tuning retrieval agents get a cheaper reward signal that separates genuinely necessary search from habitual search, which outcome-only rewards cannot distinguish.
Transcript
Search-augmented language agents should retrieve external information only when necessary and ground their answers in retrieved evidence. Existing external rewards provide either sparse outcome supervision or richer feedback from process annotations and LLM judges. Outcome rewards scale readily but cannot distinguish grounded retrieval from redundant search, whereas richer signals require costly annotation or inference during training. Internal rewards based on policy-side signals such as entropy, likelihood, or information gain are graded and inexpensive to evaluate, yet mainly reflect model confidence rather than evidence grounding. We propose Search-G1, a representation-based intrinsic reward framework that measures the operational grounding of an agent's answers through two intervention-calibrated readouts. A prompt-state readout predicts closed-book sufficiency, whose complement defines policy-relative retrieval necessity; an answer-commit readout estimates evidence reliance from answer-stage sensitivity to evidence deletion. Together, they provide additional credit to correct searched trajectories when retrieval is estimated necessary and the answer is evidence-sensitive, favor correct direct answers when closed-book knowledge suffices, and penalize repeated search. After calibration, reward scoring requires neither process annotations nor LLM-as-judge inference during policy optimization. Because reinforcement learning changes policy representations, Search-G1 periodically refits both readouts on trajectories from the latest checkpoint, allowing the reward to co-evolve with the policy. Experiments across multiple search-based question-answering benchmarks and two model scales show that Search-G1 improves the grounding--search-cost trade-off, producing shorter response-side trajectories at competitive task accuracy. Code is available at https://github.com/Rosy0912/Search-G1.