Search-augmented language agents should retrieve external information only when necessary and ground their answers in retrieved evidence. Existing external rewards provide either sparse outcome supervision or richer feedback from process annotations and LLM judges. Outcome rewards scale readily but cannot distinguish grounded retrieval from redundant search, whereas richer signals require costly annotation or inference during training. Internal rewards based on policy-side signals such as entropy, likelihood, or information gain are graded and inexpensive to evaluate, yet mainly reflect model confidence rather than evidence grounding. We propose Search-G1, a representation-based intrinsic reward framework that measures the operational grounding of an agent's answers through two intervention-calibrated readouts. A prompt-state readout predicts closed-book sufficiency, whose complement defines policy-relative retrieval necessity; an answer-commit readout estimates evidence reliance from answer-stage sensitivity to evidence deletion. Together, they provide additional credit to correct searched trajectories when retrieval is estimated necessary and the answer is evidence-sensitive, favor correct direct answers when closed-book knowledge suffices, and penalize repeated search. After calibration, reward scoring requires neither process annotations nor LLM-as-judge inference during policy optimization. Because reinforcement learning changes policy representations, Search-G1 periodically refits both readouts on trajectories from the latest checkpoint, allowing the reward to co-evolve with the policy. Experiments across multiple search-based question-answering benchmarks and two model scales show that Search-G1 improves the grounding--search-cost trade-off, producing shorter response-side trajectories at competitive task accuracy. Code is available at https://github.com/Rosy0912/Search-G1.
Ruoxi Cheng, Haoxuan Ma, Hongyi Zhang et al.· 0 citations
Once visual content enters an AI pipeline, its owner often retains little technical control over how it is used. Legal and regulatory remedies can address misuse, but many technical interventions must be applied earlier, when content is released or accessed. This survey examines the protective paradigm that has grown around this intervention point, which we call \emph{adversarial attacks for good}. Perturbations and structured signals long studied as attacks on learned models are instead applied by data owners, creators, platforms, or auditors to disrupt unauthorized automation or support later accountability. Five research communities have arrived at this inversion largely independently, each addressing a different stage of a visual asset's lifecycle: privacy filters against unwanted recognition at sharing time, unlearnable examples against unauthorized training, generative safeguards against malicious editing or imitation, adversarial CAPTCHAs for access control against automated agents, and provenance mechanisms for post-circulation attribution. Although developed in separate venues with incompatible success criteria, many of these methods exploit persistent gaps between human perception, semantic interpretation, and machine inference, suggesting that the paradigm remains relevant as visual pipelines evolve toward multimodal models and autonomous agents. To make their claims comparable, we evaluate all five families along shared axes of transferability, adaptability, and deployment readiness. Across the lifecycle, we find that most protections are still validated mainly against static or weakly adaptive adversaries, while evidence beyond controlled benchmarks remains scarce. We close by consolidating cross-stage countermeasures and open problems for robust, composable, and deployable owner-side protection.
Jiaming Zhang, Boyang Chen, Zherui Li et al.· 0 citations
