SEEDS: Preview-Guided Evidence Admission for Search Agents
On the map: LLM reasoning → Knowledge- and tool-augmented reasoning also fits: Reasoning for agents, planning and code
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Knowledge- and tool-augmented reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 30 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Oct 2026.
Builds on
30 of 42 references.
Closest ancestors · 5
Same direction, newest first
- 2025WebThinker: Empowering Large Reasoning Models with Deep Research Capability30 Apr
- 2025Search-R1: Training LLMs to Reason and Leverage Search Engines with Reinforcement Learning12 Mar
- 2025Search-o1: Agentic Search-Enhanced Large Reasoning Models9 Jan
- 2023Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey18 Dec
- 2022Interleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Step Questions20 Dec
Other references · 25
- 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 15,215
- 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,297
- 2020Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answeringcited by 3,824
- 2018HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answeringcited by 3,754
- 2017TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehensioncited by 2,955
- 2023Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Critique through Self-Reflectioncited by 1,839
- 2020Constructing A Multi-hop QA Dataset for Comprehensive Evaluation of Reasoning Stepscited by 1,282
- 2022Text Embeddings by Weakly-Supervised Contrastive Pre-trainingcited by 1,253
- 2022Measuring and Narrowing the Compositionality Gap in Language Modelscited by 1,075
- 2021MuSiQue: Multihop Questions via Single-hop Question Compositioncited by 916
- 2025BrowseComp: A Simple Yet Challenging Benchmark for Browsing Agentscited by 647
- 2023Active Retrieval Augmented Generationcited by 516
13 more
- 2025Humanity's Last Examcited by 491
- 2024ProcessBench: Identifying Process Errors in Mathematical Reasoningcited by 292
- 2025BrowseComp-ZH: Benchmarking Web Browsing Ability of Large Language Models in Chinesecited by 145
- 2026DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash: Pushing the Limits of KV Cache Compressioncited by 76
- 2025Process vs. Outcome Reward: Which is Better for Agentic RAG Reinforcement Learningcited by 70
- 2024MAIN-RAG: Multi-Agent Filtering Retrieval-Augmented Generationcited by 44
- 2025Efficient Context Selection for Long-Context QA: No Tuning, No Iteration, Just Adaptive-kcited by 21
- 2025DynamicRAG: Leveraging Outputs of Large Language Model as Feedback for Dynamic Reranking in Retrieval-Augmented Generationcited by 15
- 2025Shifting from Ranking to Set Selection for Retrieval Augmented Generationcited by 15
- 2026Rerank Before You Reason: Analyzing Reranking Tradeoffs through Effective Token Cost in Deep Search Agentscited by 7
- 2025From Ranking to Selection: A Simple but Efficient Dynamic Passage Selector for Retrieval Augmented Generationcited by 6
- 2025Q-RAG: Long Context Multi-step Retrieval via Value-based Embedder Trainingcited by 4
- 2026GRASP: GRanularity-Aware Search Policy for Agentic RAGcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Contextual Information Policy Optimization for Search Agents
- 2026SearchArt: Training Long-Horizon Search Agent with Scalable Synthetic and Verified Task
- 2026EviGraph: Towards Verifiable Evidence Construction for Information-Seeking Agents
- 2026Rethinking Reasoning-Intensive Retrieval: Evaluating and Advancing Retrievers in Agentic Search Systems
- 2026HMARS: A Hierarchical Multi-Agent Memory System for Long-Context Reasoning
- 2026HALT: Verification-Aware Stopping for Retrieval-Augmented Search Agents
- 2026EigentSearch-Q+: Enhancing Deep Research Agents with Structured Reasoning Tools
- 2026R2-Searcher: Calibrating Retrieval and Reasoning Boundaries for Agentic Search