Tool use is often assumed to monotonically improve reasoning, where external evidence is expected to help when relevant and be ignored when irrelevant. We show that this assumption fails in a state-dependent way. Across benchmarks with Python and Wikipedia tools, external evidence reliably helps when initial beliefs are weak, but can flip already-correct answers when those beliefs are strong. We frame this as a misallocation of revision authority, arguing that deferring to external evidence is suboptimal when internal support for the correct answer surpasses the tool’s expected output quality. This predicts that harm should concentrate on high-confidence no-tool cases. We test this prediction with threshold localization, wrong-trace audits, and a same-clue intervention showing that revision framing changes the damage caused by misleading evidence. These findings suggest that mixed no-tool/tool-assisted inference should arbitrate authority rather than privilege tool evidence by default. As a minimal demonstration, we introduce CASE, a label-free controller that selects between no-tool and tool-assisted trajectories using answer-state certainty and improves over existing confidence-based arbitration baselines.

ReAct-style agents for search-intensive, multi-step reasoning tasks rely largely on their own internal judgment to decide what evidence to seek, which reasoning or action step to take next, and when to stop, often producing shallow, redundant, or poorly targeted trajectories. Prior work has explored rubrics as external quality signals, but existing uses are mostly evaluative rather than action-guiding: rubrics typically serve as training-time rewards or post-hoc evaluators of completed outputs, and in deep-research settings they are often coarse-grained and report-level rather than step-level. We introduce Co-ReAct, a rubric-guided action-selection framework that uses rubrics as step-level guidance during inference. At each decision step, Co-ReAct injects a rubric into the agent’s context to guide the next Reason-or-Act decision, specifying what the agent should target in evidence seeking, search, reasoning, or self-evaluation. To make this guidance reliable, we train a dedicated rubric generator with GRPO. Unlike prior pairwise or binary preference formulations, our objective optimizes a list-wise Spearman rank-correlation reward against multi-judge expert consensus rankings, encouraging rubrics that are discriminative rather than merely plausible. On DeepResearchBench and SQA-CS-V2, Co-ReAct consistently improves over ReAct and representative test-time compute baselines across search agents built on both 8B/14B open-source and frontier closed-source base models. The trained rubric generator can also serve as a drop-in component that improves these baselines without changing their underlying decision mechanisms.

Visual-Semantic Embedding (VSE) aims to learn an embedding space where related visual and semantic instances are close to each other. Recent VSE models tend to design complex structures to pool visual and semantic features into fixed-length vectors and use hard triplet loss for optimization. However, we find that: (1) combining simple pooling methods is no worse than these sophisticated methods; and (2) only considering the most difficult-to-distinguish negative sample leads to slow convergence and poor Recall@K improvement. To this end, we propose an adaptive pooling strategy that allows the model to learn how to aggregate features through a combination of simple pooling methods. We also introduce a strategy to dynamically select a group of negative samples to make the optimization converge faster and perform better. Experimental results on Flickr30K and MS-COCO demonstrate that a standard VSE using our pooling and optimization strategies outperforms current state-of-the-art systems (at least 1.0% on the metrics of recall) in image-to-text and text-to-image retrieval. Source code of our experiments is available at https://github.com/96-Zachary/vse_2ad .