How to Train Your Deep Research Agent? Prompt, Reward, and Policy Optimization in Search-R1

Deep Research agents tackle knowledge-intensive tasks through multi-round retrieval and decision-oriented generation. While reinforcement learning (RL) has been shown to improve performance in this paradigm, its contributions remain underexplored. To fully understand the role of RL, we conduct a systematic study along three decoupled dimensions: prompt template, reward function, and policy optimization. Our study reveals that: 1) the Fast Thinking template yields greater stability and better performance than the Slow Thinking template used in prior work; 2) the F1-based reward underperforms the EM due to training collapse driven by answer avoidance; this can be mitigated by incorporating action-level penalties, ultimately surpassing EM; 3) REINFORCE outperforms PPO while requiring fewer search actions, whereas GRPO shows the poorest stability among policy optimization methods. Building on these insights, we then introduce Search-R1++, a strong baseline that improves the performance of Search-R1 from 0.403 to 0.442 (Qwen2.5-7B) and 0.289 to 0.331 (Qwen2.5-3B). We hope that our findings can pave the way for more principled and reliable RL training strategies in Deep Research systems.

Do MLLMs Really Understand Space? A Mathematical Reasoning Evaluation

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have achieved strong performance on perception-oriented tasks, yet their ability to perform mathematical spatial reasoning, defined as the capacity to parse and manipulate two- and three-dimensional relations, remains unclear. Humans easily solve textbook-style spatial reasoning problems with over 95\% accuracy, but we find that most leading MLLMs fail to reach even 60\% on the same tasks. This striking gap highlights spatial reasoning as a fundamental weakness of current models. To investigate this gap, we present MathSpatial, a unified framework for evaluating and improving spatial reasoning in MLLMs. MathSpatial includes three complementary components: (i) MathSpatial-Bench, a benchmark of 2K problems across three categories and eleven subtypes, designed to isolate reasoning difficulty from perceptual noise; (ii) MathSpatial-Corpus, a training dataset of 8K additional problems with verified solutions; and (iii) MathSpatial-SRT, which models reasoning as structured traces composed of three atomic operations--Correlate, Constrain, and Infer. Experiments show that fine-tuning Qwen2.5-VL-7B on MathSpatial achieves competitive accuracy while reducing tokens by 25\%. MathSpatial provides the first large-scale resource that disentangles perception from reasoning, enabling precise measurement and comprehensive understanding of mathematical spatial reasoning in MLLMs.

Reassessing the Role of Supervised Fine-Tuning: An Empirical Study in VLM Reasoning

Recent advances in vision-language models (VLMs) reasoning have been largely attributed to the rise of reinforcement Learning (RL), which has shifted the community's focus away from the supervised fine-tuning (SFT) paradigm. Many studies suggest that introducing the SFT stage not only fails to improve reasoning ability but may also negatively impact model training. In this study, we revisit this RL-centric belief through a systematic and controlled comparison of SFT and RL on VLM Reasoning. Using identical data sources, we find that the relative effectiveness of SFT and RL is conditional and strongly influenced by model capacity, data scale, and data distribution. Contrary to common assumptions, our findings show that SFT plays a crucial role across several scenarios: (1) Effectiveness for weaker models. SFT more reliably elicits reasoning capabilities in smaller or weaker VLMs. (2) Data efficiency. SFT with only 2K achieves comparable or better reasoning performance to RL with 20K. (3) Cross-modal transferability. SFT demonstrates stronger generalization across modalities. Moreover, we identify a pervasive issue of deceptive rewards, where higher rewards fail to correlate with better reasoning accuracy in RL. These results challenge the prevailing "RL over SFT" narrative. They highlight that the role of SFT may have been underestimated and support a more balanced post-training pipeline in which SFT and RL function as complementary components.