OpenSeeker-v2: How an Academic Team Beat Industry Giants at Search Agents Using Just 10k Examples

Paper: 2605.04036 Authors: Yuwen Du, Rui Ye, Shuo Tang, Keduan Huang, Xinyu Zhu, Yuzhu Cai, Siheng Chen Categories: cs.AI, cs.CL

The Gap

Industry has established a recipe for training frontier search agents: pre-training → continual pre-training (CPT) → supervised fine-tuning (SFT) → reinforcement learning (RL). This pipeline requires massive compute and data infrastructure that only tech giants can afford. Academic teams are effectively locked out of pushing the state-of-the-art in search agents. The assumption has been that you need all four stages to reach frontier performance.

This paper challenges that assumption. What if the bottleneck isn’t the training pipeline, but the quality and difficulty of the training data itself?

Problem: Academic teams can't compete in search agents
   |
   v
Assumption: Industry's 4-stage pipeline is necessary
   |
   v
Method: SFT-only with informative + high-difficulty data
   |
   +---> Scale knowledge graphs (richer exploration)
   +---> Expand tool sets (broader functionality)  
   +---> Strict low-step filtering (harder problems)
   |
   v
Evidence: 10.6k examples → beats CPT+SFT+RL systems
   |
   v
Conclusion: Data quality > pipeline complexity

The Increment

One sentence: Before this paper, frontier search agents required industrial-scale multi-stage training; after, a 10k-example SFT dataset with the right properties can match or exceed them.

Core Mechanism

OpenSeeker-v2 synthesizes training trajectories by having an LLM agent solve complex multi-hop questions using web search and tools. The key is in how they construct these trajectories. First, they scale up the knowledge graphs used to generate questions—larger graphs force the agent to explore more diverse paths. Second, they expand the tool set beyond just search to include calculators, code execution, and knowledge retrieval, broadening the agent’s functional repertoire. Third, they apply strict filtering: only keep trajectories that solve problems in few steps, which selects for high-difficulty tasks that require efficient reasoning.

The training data flows through three stages: question generation from scaled knowledge graphs, trajectory collection via agent exploration with expanded tools, and aggressive filtering that keeps only the hardest 10.6k examples. Each trajectory is a complete search session—query formulation, tool calls, information synthesis, and final answer.

Knowledge Graph (scaled) --> Question Generator
                                    |
                                    v
                            Complex Questions
                                    |
                                    v
                    Agent (expanded tool set) --> Trajectories
                                                      |
                                                      v
                                            Low-step Filter
                                                      |
                                                      v
                                            10.6k Hard Examples
                                                      |
                                                      v
                                                SFT Training

Think of it like training a chess player. The industry approach is like having them play millions of games at all skill levels, then getting coaching, then competing in tournaments with feedback loops. OpenSeeker-v2 instead curates 10,000 master-level games where every move matters—no filler, no easy wins. The player studies only these dense, instructive games. The knowledge graph scaling is like expanding the opening book so the player sees more board positions. The tool expansion is like teaching them endgame techniques beyond just piece movement. The low-step filtering is like keeping only games where both sides played near-perfectly and the outcome hinged on deep calculation. You learn more from one Kasparov game than from a hundred beginner matches.

Key Concepts

• Informative trajectories: A trajectory is informative when it demonstrates non-trivial reasoning patterns that generalize. In search agents, this means the path from question to answer involves multiple decision points where the agent must choose between plausible alternatives. For example, answering “What was the GDP of the country that hosted the 2008 Olympics in the year before?” requires: (1) identifying the host country (China), (2) determining the target year (2007), (3) retrieving the GDP figure. An uninformative trajectory might have the answer directly in the first search result. An informative one requires the agent to chain facts across multiple sources. The paper achieves this by scaling knowledge graphs—larger graphs naturally produce questions whose answers aren’t co-located in single documents.

• High-difficulty filtering: Not all hard problems are useful for training. A problem is high-difficulty in the useful sense when it can be solved efficiently by an expert but requires sophisticated reasoning. The paper’s “strict low-step filtering” keeps only trajectories that solve complex problems in few steps. This filters out two failure modes: (1) easy problems that happen to take many steps due to inefficient search, and (2) impossible problems where the agent thrashes. What remains are problems that demand tight, purposeful reasoning—the agent must plan ahead, use tools strategically, and synthesize information cleanly. It’s the difference between a maze with one long path (high step count, low difficulty) and a maze with many dead ends that requires backtracking intelligence (low step count, high difficulty).

Framework Shift

Before (Industry Pipeline):          After (OpenSeeker-v2):

Pre-training (general)               [Skip - use base model]
       |                                      |
       v                                      v
CPT (domain adapt)                   Data Synthesis:
       |                              - Scale KG size
       v                              - Expand tools
SFT (task learning)                  - Filter hard cases
       |                                      |
       v                                      v
RL (optimization)                    SFT (10.6k examples)
       |                                      |
       v                                      v
Frontier Agent                       Frontier Agent

Resource: Massive                    Resource: Modest
Stages: 4                            Stages: 1
Focus: Pipeline depth                Focus: Data quality

From multi-stage pipeline optimization to single-stage data curation, the core shift is trading compute breadth for data depth.

Expert Assessment

Problem choice: This is a real and important gap. The democratization of frontier AI capabilities matters for research velocity and institutional diversity. The problem sits at the intersection of efficiency research and capability research—showing that academic teams can compete changes the field’s power dynamics.

Method maturity: The approach is refreshingly simple but not simplistic. The three modifications (scale KG, expand tools, filter hard) are individually straightforward, but their combination is non-obvious. The insight that data difficulty can substitute for pipeline complexity is clever. However, there’s a lurking question: are they discovering a new training paradigm, or are they just distilling the outputs of existing strong models more efficiently? The trajectories are generated by LLMs that were themselves trained with industrial pipelines.

Experimental integrity: The baselines are fair and the benchmarks are diverse (BrowseComp, BrowseComp-ZH, Humanity’s Last Exam, xbench). The comparison to Tongyi DeepResearch is particularly meaningful since it represents the full industrial pipeline. The numbers are strong across the board. One minor concern: the paper doesn’t deeply analyze failure modes or provide error analysis. What kinds of queries does OpenSeeker-v2 still fail on? Are there systematic gaps?

Writing quality: The paper is clear and well-structured. The abstract efficiently conveys the main result. The method section could be stronger—the three modifications are described but not deeply motivated. Why these three specifically? Were others tried? The related work section does a good job positioning the work but could engage more critically with prior SFT-only attempts. The conclusion is appropriately humble about limitations.

Verdict: strong accept — Demonstrates that academic teams can achieve frontier search agent performance with orders of magnitude less resources by focusing on data quality over pipeline complexity, with strong empirical results across multiple benchmarks.

Takeaways

For practitioners building agents: Don’t default to complex multi-stage pipelines. Invest in data curation first. Specifically: (1) Generate training data from harder problem distributions—scale up the complexity of your source materials. (2) Filter aggressively for efficiency—keep only examples where the agent solves hard problems in few steps. (3) Expand the action space during data collection even if you don’t use all tools at inference—it forces the model to learn when to use what.

For researchers: This paper provides a template for academic teams to compete in domains dominated by industry. The key is identifying which components of the industrial recipe are load-bearing and which are cargo cult. Here, CPT and RL turned out to be less critical than data quality. Look for similar opportunities in other domains where the assumed “necessary” pipeline might be overkill.

Transferable technique: The “strict low-step filtering” heuristic is broadly applicable. In any sequential decision-making domain, you can filter training data for examples that achieve complex goals efficiently. This selects for demonstrations of planning and strategic thinking rather than trial-and-error. It’s a simple proxy for “this example contains compressed expertise.”