Efficiently acquiring external knowledge and up-to-date information is essential for effective reasoning and text generation in large language models (LLMs). Prompting advanced LLMs with reasoning capabilities to use search engines during inference is often suboptimal, as the LLM might not fully possess the capability on how to interact optimally with the search engine. This paper introduces Search-R1, an extension of reinforcement learning (RL) for reasoning frameworks where the LLM learns to autonomously generate (multiple) search queries during step-by-step reasoning with real-time retrieval. Search-R1 optimizes LLM reasoning trajectories with multi-turn search interactions, leveraging retrieved token masking for stable RL training and a simple outcome-based reward function. Experiments on seven question-answering datasets show that Search-R1 improves performance by 41% (Qwen2.5-7B) and 20% (Qwen2.5-3B) over various RAG baselines under the same setting. This paper further provides empirical insights into RL optimization methods, LLM choices, and response length dynamics in retrieval-augmented reasoning. The code and model checkpoints are available at https://github.com/PeterGriffinJin/Search-R1.

1. Bibliographic Information

• Title: Search-R1: Training LLMs to Reason and Leverage Search Engines with Reinforcement Learning
• Authors: Bowen Jin, Hansi Zeng, Zhenrui Yue, Jinsung Yoon, Sercan O. Arik, Dong Wang, Hamed Zamani, Jiawei Han
• Authors' Affiliations: The authors are from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, University of Massachusetts Amherst, and Google Cloud AI Research, indicating a collaboration between top academic institutions and a leading industry research lab.
• Journal/Conference: The paper is available on arXiv, which is a preprint server. This means it has not yet undergone formal peer review for a conference or journal but is shared to disseminate findings quickly.
• Publication Year: The version referenced is from March 2025 (as per the arXiv ID 2503.09516v5), indicating very recent research.
• Abstract: The paper introduces Search-R1, a framework that uses reinforcement learning (RL) to train Large Language Models (LLMs) to effectively use search engines during their reasoning process. The model learns to generate search queries in multiple turns, integrated with its step-by-step reasoning. Key technical features include using retrieved token masking for training stability and a simple outcome-based reward function. In experiments on seven question-answering datasets, Search-R1 showed significant performance improvements of 41% for a 7B parameter model and 20% for a 3B parameter model over standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) baselines.
• Original Source Link:

  • arXiv Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.09516v5

  • PDF Link: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.09516v5

  • Publication Status: Preprint.

    ---

2. Executive Summary

• Background & Motivation (Why):

  • Core Problem: Standard LLMs, despite their vast knowledge, face two major limitations: 1) Their internal knowledge is static and can become outdated, and 2) they often struggle with complex, multi-step reasoning tasks that require external information.
  • Existing Gaps: Current solutions are suboptimal.
    • Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): Typically retrieves information once at the beginning based on the initial query. This one-shot approach is insufficient for complex problems that require iterative information gathering.
    • Prompting-Based Tool Use (e.g., ReAct): Relies on the LLM's pre-existing, in-context learning abilities to use tools. This often fails to generalize well and doesn't explicitly train the model how to optimally interact with a search engine.
    • Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) for Tool Use: Requires large datasets of high-quality, human-annotated "trajectories" (step-by-step reasoning and tool use examples), which are expensive and difficult to create at scale.
  • Innovation: The paper proposes to use Reinforcement Learning (RL) to train the LLM directly. Instead of needing perfect examples, the model learns through trial and error, guided by a simple reward signal indicating whether its final answer was correct. This teaches the LLM to autonomously decide when to search, what to search for, and how to use the retrieved information within its reasoning process.

• Main Contributions / Findings (What):

  • Search-R1 Framework: A novel RL framework that integrates a live search engine into the training loop. The model learns to interleave its own generated reasoning steps with search engine calls.

  • Retrieved Token Masking: A key technical innovation to stabilize RL training. The loss function is masked (ignored) for the tokens that come from the search engine's results, ensuring the model only learns from its own generated text (reasoning, queries, and final answer) and not from the external, non-learnable retrieved content.

  • Simple Yet Effective Reward: The framework successfully trains the LLM using a simple, outcome-based reward (i.e., was the final answer correct?), avoiding the complexity of designing process-based rewards or training a separate reward model.

  • Significant Performance Gains: Search-R1 substantially outperforms a wide range of baselines. On average, it achieves a 41% relative improvement with the Qwen2.5-7B model and a 20% relative improvement with the Qwen2.5-3B model compared to standard RAG.

    ---

3. Prerequisite Knowledge & Related Work

• Foundational Concepts:

  • Large Language Models (LLMs): These are deep learning models with billions of parameters, trained on vast amounts of text data. They excel at understanding and generating human-like text but can "hallucinate" (invent facts) and have knowledge cutoff dates.
  • Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): A technique to enhance LLMs with external knowledge. The standard process is: 1) Take a user's prompt. 2) Use it as a query to a search engine or database to find relevant documents. 3) Prepend the content of these documents to the original prompt and feed the combined text to the LLM to generate a final, knowledge-grounded answer.
  • Tool Use in LLMs: The idea of enabling LLMs to interact with external software "tools" like calculators, code interpreters, or search APIs. Frameworks like ReAct (Reason+Act) show that LLMs can be prompted to generate reasoning traces and tool-specific commands in an interleaved fashion.
  • Reinforcement Learning (RL): A machine learning paradigm where an "agent" (the LLM) learns to make decisions by interacting with an "environment". The agent takes "actions" (generating tokens), receives "rewards" (feedback on its performance), and adjusts its "policy" (decision-making strategy) to maximize its cumulative reward over time.
  • Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO): A popular RL algorithm used in training LLMs (e.g., in RLHF - Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback). It's an "actor-critic" method, meaning it has a policy model (the actor) that generates text and a value model (the critic) that estimates the quality of the generated text to guide training. It uses a "clipping" mechanism to prevent destructively large policy updates, ensuring stable training.
  • Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO): An alternative RL algorithm that simplifies the process by removing the need for a separate critic model. Instead of a value function, it generates multiple responses for a given prompt, calculates their rewards, and uses the relative differences in rewards within the group as the training signal. This can be more efficient but, as the paper shows, sometimes less stable than PPO.

• Differentiation:

  • Search-R1 vs. RAG: Standard RAG is a static, one-time retrieval process. Search-R1 is dynamic and multi-turn; the LLM learns an active policy to decide when and what to search for at any point during its reasoning.

  • Search-R1 vs. Prompting (ReAct/IRCoT): Prompting methods rely on the LLM's existing abilities. Search-R1 explicitly fine-tunes the LLM's parameters using RL, directly teaching it the skill of interacting with a search engine. This leads to more robust and optimized behavior.

  • Search-R1 vs. Supervised Fine-Tuning (Toolformer): SFT requires a large dataset of perfect, step-by-step demonstrations. Search-R1 bypasses this need by learning from a simple final outcome reward, making it more scalable and less reliant on expensive data annotation.

  • Search-R1 vs. RL for Reasoning (DeepSeek-R1): Search-R1 extends reasoning-focused RL frameworks like DeepSeek-R1 by incorporating a non-parametric, external tool (the search engine) into the environment, teaching the model to reason with external knowledge, not just its internal knowledge.

    ---

4. Methodology (Core Technology & Implementation)

The core of Search-R1 is framing the task of reasoning with a search engine as an RL problem.

• Principles: The LLM is the agent, and the environment consists of the task (the question) and the search engine. The agent's actions are generating tokens. Some sequences of tokens trigger an interaction with the environment (a search query), which returns new information that becomes part of the agent's context for subsequent actions.

• Reinforcement Learning Objective: The goal is to train the policy LLM ($\pi_{\theta}$) to maximize the expected reward while not straying too far from a reference model ($\pi_{ref}$). The general objective is: $$\operatorname* { m a x } _ { \pi _ { \theta } } \mathbb { E } _ { \boldsymbol { x } \sim \mathcal { D } , \boldsymbol { y } \sim \pi _ { \theta } ( \cdot | \boldsymbol { x } ; \mathcal { R } ) } \left[ r _ { \phi } ( \boldsymbol { x } , \boldsymbol { y } ) \right] - \beta \mathbb { D } _ { \mathrm { K L } } \left[ \pi _ { \theta } ( \boldsymbol { y } \mid \boldsymbol { x } ; \mathcal { R } ) \mid \mid \pi _ { \mathrm { r e f } } ( \boldsymbol { y } \mid \boldsymbol { x } ; \mathcal { R } ) \right] ,$$

  • $\pi_{\theta}$: The LLM policy being trained.
  • $\pi_{ref}$: A reference copy of the model, used to prevent the trained model from diverging too much (regularization).
  • $x$: The input question from dataset $\mathcal{D}$.
  • $y$: The full generated output trajectory, including reasoning, search queries, and the final answer.
  • $\mathcal{R}$: The search engine, which is part of the generation process. $\pi_{\theta}(\cdot | x; \mathcal{R})$ signifies that generation is interleaved with results from $\mathcal{R}$.
  • $r_{\phi}(x, y)$: The reward function, which scores the final output $y$.
  • $\mathbb{D}_{KL}$: The KL-divergence, a measure of how different the trained policy $\pi_{\theta}$ is from the reference policy $\pi_{ref}$.
  • $\beta$: A hyperparameter that controls the strength of the KL penalty.

• Steps & Procedures: The process, illustrated in Figure 1, involves several key steps.

  该图像为示意图，展示了结合搜索引擎的PPO（上半部分）和GRPO（下半部分）两种强化学习策略框架流程。PPO框架中输入查询q由策略LLM生成搜索引擎交互输出o，通过价值LLM、奖励模型和参考LLM计算优势函数A。GRPO中，策略LLM生成多个输出o1到oG，经奖励模型和参考LLM计算对应奖励r1到rG，经过组合作用计算多个优势A1到AG。图中使用颜色区分了已训练模型、冻结模型和搜索引擎组件。

  1. Rollout: For a given question, the LLM generates a response step-by-step. This process is detailed in Algorithm 1.
     • The model generates text within ... tags.
     • If it needs information, it generates a query within ... tags.
     • The system detects this, sends the query to the search engine $\mathcal{R}$, and inserts the results back into the context within ... tags.
     • This can repeat multiple times.
     • Finally, the model generates its final answer within ... tags.
  2. Reward Calculation: Once the rollout is complete, the final answer is extracted and compared to the ground truth. A reward is calculated using a simple rule.
  3. Policy Optimization: The trajectory (the full sequence of generated tokens) and its corresponding reward are used to update the LLM's weights using an RL algorithm like PPO or GRPO.

• Mathematical Formulas & Key Details:

  • Loss Masking for Retrieved Tokens: This is a critical detail. During the loss calculation for PPO or GRPO, the model's predictions for tokens inside the ... block are ignored. This is crucial because those tokens are not generated by the LLM; they are copied from the search engine. Trying to train the LLM to predict this external text would be unstable and pointless. The masking is represented by $I(y_t)$ in the formulas, which is 1 for LLM-generated tokens and 0 for retrieved tokens.
  • PPO Objective: The specific PPO objective used is: $$\mathcal { T } _ { P P O } ( \theta ) = \mathbb { E } _ { x \sim \mathcal { D } , y \sim \pi _ { 0 d } ( \cdot | x \cdot \mathcal { R } ) } \left[ \frac { 1 } { \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { | y | } I ( y _ { t } ) } \sum _ { \substack { t = 1 : I ( y _ { t } ) = 1 } } ^ { | y | } \operatorname* { m i n } \left( \frac { \pi _ { \theta } ( y _ { t } | x , y _ { \cdot < t } ; \mathcal { R } ) } { \pi _ { \mathrm { o d d } } ( y _ { t } | x , y _ { \cdot < t } ; \mathcal { R } ) } A _ { t } , \mathrm { c l i p } \left( \frac { \pi _ { \theta } ( y _ { t } | x , y _ { \cdot < t } ; \mathcal { R } ) } { \pi _ { \mathrm { o d d } } ( y _ { t } | x , y _ { \cdot < t } ; \mathcal { R } ) } , 1 - \epsilon , 1 + \epsilon \right) A _ { t } \right) \right] ,$$
    • $A_t$: The "advantage" at timestep $t$, which estimates how much better a specific action (generating token $y_t$) was compared to the average action at that state. It's calculated using a critic model.
    • $\pi_{old}$: The policy before the update. The ratio $\frac{\pi_{\theta}}{\pi_{old}}$ measures the change in policy.
    • clip(...): This function constrains the policy ratio to be within $[1-\epsilon, 1+\epsilon]$, preventing overly aggressive updates and stabilizing training.
  • Reward Model: The reward is based on a simple rule, Exact Match (EM): $$r _ { \phi } ( x , y ) = \mathrm { E M } ( a _ { \mathrm { p r e d } } , a _ { \mathrm { g o l d } } ) ,$$

    • $a_{pred}$ is the answer extracted from the tags in the model's output $y$.

    • $a_{gold}$ is the ground truth answer.

    • The reward is 1 if they match exactly, and 0 otherwise.

      ---

5. Experimental Setup

• Datasets: A diverse set of seven well-known question-answering benchmarks were used.
  • General QA: NQ (Natural Questions), TriviaQA, PopQA. These require factual lookups.
  • Multi-Hop QA: HotpotQA, 2WikiMultiHopQA, Musique, Bamboogle. These are more complex, requiring the model to find and connect multiple pieces of information to derive the final answer.
• Evaluation Metrics:
  • Exact Match (EM): This metric measures the percentage of predicted answers that are an exact string match to the ground truth answer.
    1. Conceptual Definition: It is a strict accuracy metric that rewards only perfect answers. It is simple to compute and unambiguous, making it a standard choice for closed-domain QA tasks.
    2. Mathematical Formula: $$\mathrm{EM} = \frac{\text{Number of Exactly Correct Answers}}{\text{Total Number of Questions}} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \mathbb{I}(\text{pred}_i = \text{gold}_i)$$
    3. Symbol Explanation:
       • $N$: The total number of questions in the evaluation set.
       • $\text{pred}_i$: The predicted answer for the i-th question.
       • $\text{gold}_i$: The ground truth answer for the i-th question.
       • $\mathbb{I}(\cdot)$: The indicator function, which is 1 if the condition inside is true (the strings match) and 0 otherwise.
• Baselines: Search-R1 was compared against a comprehensive set of methods:
  • No Retrieval: Direct Inference and Chain-of-Thought (CoT).
  • With Retrieval (Prompting-based): RAG (standard retrieval-augmented generation), IRCoT (iterative retrieval with CoT), and Search-o1.
  • Fine-Tuning Methods:
    • SFT: Supervised fine-tuning on trajectories.
    • R1: An RL-based method for reasoning without a search engine, to isolate the benefit of adding search.
    • Rejection Sampling: A strong baseline where multiple responses are generated, and only the ones leading to correct answers are used for fine-tuning.
• Implementation Details:

  • Models: Qwen-2.5-3B and Qwen-2.5-7B, in both Base and Instruct versions.

  • Retriever: The E5 model was used to retrieve passages from a 2018 Wikipedia dump.

  • Training Data: A combination of the training sets from NQ and HotpotQA. The model was then evaluated on all seven datasets to test both in-domain and out-of-domain generalization.

    ---

6. Results & Analysis

• Core Results: The main results are presented in Table 2, which has been transcribed below.

  This is a manual transcription of Table 2 from the paper.

  Methods	NQ†	TriviaQA*	PopQA*	HotpotQA†	2wiki*	Musique*	Bamboogle*	Avg.
  Qwen2.5-7b-Base/Instruct
  Direct Inference	0.134	0.408	0.140	0.183	0.250	0.031	0.120	0.181
  CoT	0.048	0.185	0.054	0.092	0.111	0.022	0.232	0.106
  IRCoT	0.224	0.478	0.301	0.133	0.149	0.072	0.224	0.239
  Search-o1	0.151	0.443	0.131	0.187	0.176	0.058	0.296	0.206
  RAG	0.349	0.585	0.392	0.299	0.235	0.058	0.208	0.304
  SFT	0.318	0.354	0.121	0.217	0.259	0.066	0.112	0.207
  R1-base	0.297	0.539	0.202	0.242	0.273	0.083	0.296	0.276
  R1-instruct	0.270	0.537	0.199	0.237	0.292	0.072	0.293	0.271
  Rejection Sampling	0.360	0.592	0.380	0.331	0.296	0.123	0.355	0.348
  Search-R1-base	0.480	0.638	0.457	0.433	0.382	0.196	0.432	0.431
  Search-R1-instruct	0.393	0.610	0.397	0.370	0.414	0.146	0.368	0.385
  Qwen2.5-3b-Base/Instruct
  Direct Inference	0.106	0.288	0.108	0.149	0.244	0.020	0.024	0.134
  CoT	0.023	0.032	0.005	0.021	0.021	0.002	0.000	0.015
  IRCoT	0.111	0.312	0.200	0.164	0.171	0.067	0.240	0.181
  Search-o1	0.238	0.472	0.262	0.221	0.218	0.054	0.320	0.255
  RAG	0.348	0.544	0.387	0.255	0.226	0.047	0.080	0.270
  SFT	0.249	0.292	0.104	0.186	0.248	0.044	0.112	0.176
  R1-base	0.226	0.455	0.173	0.201	0.268	0.055	0.224	0.229
  R1-instruct	0.210	0.449	0.171	0.208	0.275	0.060	0.192	0.224
  Rejection Sampling	0.294	0.488	0.332	0.240	0.233	0.059	0.210	0.265
  Search-R1-base	0.406	0.587	0.435	0.284	0.273	0.049	0.088	0.303
  Search-R1-instruct	0.341	0.545	0.378	0.324	0.319	0.103	0.264	0.325

  Note: † indicates in-domain datasets, * indicates out-of-domain datasets.

  • Key Findings:
    1. Consistent Outperformance: Search-R1 is the top-performing method across the board for both model sizes. The base version of the 7B model achieved the highest average score of 0.431.
    2. Strong Generalization: The improvements are not limited to the training datasets (NQ, HotpotQA). Search-R1 also shows substantial gains on the five out-of-domain datasets, indicating it has learned a generalizable skill of reasoning with search, not just memorized patterns.
    3. Value of Search: Search-R1 significantly outperforms R1, the equivalent RL method without search capabilities. This clearly demonstrates the benefit of integrating the learned search interaction.
    4. Scaling Benefits: The performance gap between Search-R1 and the next best baseline (Rejection Sampling) is much larger for the 7B model than for the 3B model, suggesting that larger models are better able to leverage the RL training to learn complex search and reasoning behaviors.

• Ablations & Deeper Analysis:

  该图像为四个折线图组成的图表，展示了不同训练策略和指标随训练步骤的变化趋势。(a)对比PPO与GRPO方法的训练奖励变化，GRPO表现更优且更稳定。(b)对比基础模型和带指令的模型的训练奖励增长，带指令模型表现更好。(c)响应长度和训练奖励随步骤增加的变化，响应长度先下降后回升，训练奖励持续上升。(d)有效搜索次数和训练奖励随步骤的变化，两者均呈逐步上升趋势。

  • Different RL methods: PPO vs. GRPO (Figure 2a): The plot shows that GRPO's reward increases faster initially, but then becomes unstable and collapses around step 300. PPO learns more slowly but remains stable throughout training. Table 3 (not transcribed, but summarized) shows that their final performance is comparable. Conclusion: PPO is a more reliable choice for this task due to its stability.

  • Base vs. Instruct LLMs (Figure 2b): The instruction-tuned model (Instruct) starts with a higher reward and learns faster. However, the Base model eventually catches up after sufficient RL training. Conclusion: RL can effectively teach complex behaviors even to base models that haven't undergone instruction tuning, closing the performance gap over time.

  • Response Length and Valid Search Study (Figure 2c, 2d):

    • Response Length: In early training, the model learns to be concise, and the response length drops. As it learns to use the search tool effectively, it starts making search calls, and the retrieved information causes the response length to increase again, correlating with a rise in reward.
    • Valid Searches: The number of valid search calls per query steadily increases as training progresses, mirroring the increase in the training reward. Conclusion: The model is not just randomly using the search tool; it is learning to use it more frequently and effectively as it gets better at solving the task.

  • Study of Retrieved Tokens Loss Masking (Table 4): This is a manual transcription of Table 4 from the paper.

    Method	NQ	TriviaQA	PopQA	HotpotQA	2wiki	Musique	Bamboogle	Avg.
    SEARCH-R1 w. mask	0.480	0.638	0.457	0.433	0.382	0.196	0.432	0.431
    SEARCH-R1 w.o. mask	0.388	0.567	0.391	0.325	0.321	0.108	0.304	0.343

    Conclusion: Training with loss masking is significantly better, with the average score dropping from 0.431 to 0.343 without it. This confirms that forcing the model to learn from external, non-generated text destabilizes training and hurts final performance. The masking technique is essential to the framework's success.

---

7. Conclusion & Reflections

• Conclusion Summary: The paper successfully introduces Search-R1, a powerful and novel RL framework for training LLMs to reason and interact with search engines. By modeling search as part of the RL environment, using a simple outcome-based reward, and employing a critical token masking technique, the method allows LLMs to learn autonomous, multi-turn search strategies. The experimental results show that Search-R1 substantially improves performance on a wide range of question-answering tasks, demonstrating a more effective and scalable way to build knowledge-grounded, reasoning-capable LLMs compared to existing RAG and tool-use methods.

• Limitations & Future Work: The authors suggest several promising directions for future research:

  • Exploring more sophisticated reward mechanisms beyond simple exact match.
  • Allowing the model to dynamically adjust its retrieval strategy, for example, retrieving more documents when it is uncertain.
  • Integrating a more diverse set of tools beyond just a search engine.
  • Extending the framework to other domains, such as multimodal reasoning tasks involving images and text.

• Personal Insights & Critique:

  • Significance: This work is a significant step towards creating more autonomous and capable AI agents. The key insight is that complex, strategic behaviors (like knowing when to ask for help from a tool) can be learned from a very simple, high-level success signal, which is a much more scalable approach than supervised learning on human-annotated trajectories.
  • Strengths: The methodology is clean and well-motivated. The use of retrieved token masking is a simple but clever solution to a key training stability problem. The experimental analysis is thorough, with strong baselines and insightful ablation studies that clearly demonstrate the value of each component.
  • Potential Weaknesses/Open Questions:
    • The reliance on a fixed format with special tokens (, , etc.) might limit the model's flexibility. Could this behavior be learned in a more free-form manner?
    • The evaluation is currently limited to question-answering. It would be interesting to see how Search-R1 performs on more open-ended, creative tasks that might benefit from external information, such as writing a report or summarizing recent events.
    • The "environment" is still relatively simple (a single search tool). Real-world agentic behavior will require managing multiple, diverse tools, which could introduce new challenges for the RL training process.