Grounded Credit Assignment in Reinforcement Learning for Multi-Turn Search Agents

Abstract

Outcome-reward reinforcement learning such as GRPO gives every token of a search-agent rollout the same advantage, although the rollout exercises two capabilities: finding evidence and using it. We show that accuracy improves without grounding: Search-R1 raises accuracy on all seven QA benchmarks, yet on Bamboogle the evidence-supported share of correct answers falls from 84.0% to 42.9%. We attribute this to GRPO's credit assignment: rollouts that retrieve answer-bearing evidence are favoured in aggregate only in proportion to their accuracy gain over the rest, a grounding gap that answering from memory or misusing evidence shrinks or reverses. To address this, we propose Grounded Credit Assignment (GCA), which uses verifiable sub-outcomes (evidence retrieval and answer correctness) to correct search and answer credit separately: a wrong answer is blamed more than the search that found the evidence, and a correct answer that bypasses retrievable evidence is credited less. Never negative on evidence-finding search, the correction does not shrink with the grounding gap; capped at 10% of each token's advantage, it never overrides the outcome signal. Without extra models, rollouts, or training stages, GCA improves average EM over Search-R1 by 5.7 (Qwen2.5-3B) and 6.3 points (Qwen3-30B-A3B) and raises this share from 76.9% to 93.4%.