Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the limitations of Small Language Models (SLMs) as search agents compared to LLMs, finding that SLMs underutilize search tools and are more prone to hallucinations. To mitigate this, they introduce a fine-tuning approach, \policy, that explicitly trains SLMs to retrieve and generate answers based on retrieved evidence. Results show that \policy significantly improves SLM performance, achieving LLM-level results on Bamboogle and HotpotQA, outperforming agent distillation by over 15 points.
Forget distilling LLM agents into smaller models; explicitly training SLMs to reliably search and generate grounded answers closes the performance gap and then some.
Agents equipped with search tools have emerged as effective solutions for knowledge-intensive tasks. While Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong reasoning capabilities, their high computational cost limits practical deployment for search agents. Consequently, recent work has focused on distilling agentic behaviors from LLMs into Small Language Models (SLMs). Through comprehensive evaluation on complex multi-hop reasoning tasks, we find that despite possessing less parametric knowledge, SLMs invoke search tools less frequently and are more prone to hallucinations. To address this issue, we propose \policy, a lightweight fine-tuning approach that explicitly trains SLMs to reliably retrieve and generate answers grounded in retrieved evidence. Compared to agent distillation from LLMs, our approach improves performance by 17.3 scores on Bamboogle and 15.3 scores on HotpotQA, achieving LLM-level results across benchmarks. Our further analysis reveals that adaptive search strategies in SLMs often degrade performance, highlighting the necessity of consistent search behavior for reliable reasoning.