Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper addresses the challenge of optimizing search-augmented language models by formulating a search-routing problem that determines when external evidence is necessary for task success. By comparing outcomes of no-search and forced-search scenarios, the authors construct an oracle to guide the training of search-routing policies through supervised fine-tuning and preference optimization. The results show significant improvements in routing accuracy, with macro-F1 scores increasing from 0.7082 to 0.8235 for Gemma E2B and from 0.7053 to 0.8365 for Qwen3.5-4B, while also revealing insights into model-specific routing failures.
Search-augmented LLMs can achieve up to a 16% improvement in task success by learning when to avoid unnecessary searches.
Search-augmented language models can use external evidence to compensate for limitations in parametric knowledge, but search is not uniformly beneficial: models may call search for questions they can already answer, or rely on noisy evidence when correction, clarification, or abstention would be more appropriate. We formulate this as an instance-level search-routing problem: deciding whether search is needed to improve task success relative to a no-search execution. To derive supervision, we compare no-search and forced-search outcomes for the same question and construct an oracle over NO SEARCH, SEARCH, and UNSOLVED based on task-specific success. Using this oracle as both an evaluation criterion and a learning signal, we train search-routing policies with supervised fine-tuning and preference optimization, improving routing macro-F1 on oracle-eligible examples from 0.7082 to 0.8235 for Gemma E2B and from 0.7053 to 0.8365 for Qwen3.5-4B. Further analysis shows that the learned policies reduce model-specific routing failures: Gemma primarily learns no-search restraint, while Qwen further reduces missed search; residual UNSOLVED cases reveal heterogeneous bottlenecks involving model capacity, retrieval budget, evidence use, and policy behavior.
