PreprintCited by 2Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorTopic ModelingMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

Characterizing Deep Research: A Benchmark and Formal Definition

Open access
Java, Abhinav, Khandelwal, Ashmit, Midigeshi, Sukruta, Halfaker, Aaron, Deshpande, Amit, Goyal, Navin, Gupta, Ankur, Natarajan, Nagarajan +1 more·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Information tasks such as writing surveys or analytical reports require complex search and reasoning, and have recently been grouped under the umbrella of \textit{deep research} -- a term also adopted by recent models targeting these capabilities. Despite growing interest, the scope of the deep research task remains underdefined and its distinction from other reasoning-intensive problems is poorly understood. In this paper, we propose a formal characterization of the deep research (DR) task and introduce a benchmark to evaluate the performance of DR systems. We argue that the core defining feature of deep research is not the production of lengthy report-style outputs, but rather the high fan-out over concepts required during the search process, i.e., broad and reasoning-intensive exploration. To enable objective evaluation, we define DR using an intermediate output representation that encodes key claims uncovered during search-separating the reasoning challenge from surface-level report generation. Based on this formulation, we propose a diverse, challenging benchmark LiveDRBench with 100 challenging tasks over scientific topics (e.g., datasets, materials discovery, prior art search) and public interest events (e.g., flight incidents, movie awards). Across state-of-the-art DR systems, F1 score ranges between 0.02 and 0.72 for any sub-category. OpenAI's model performs the best with an overall F1 score of 0.55. Analysis of reasoning traces reveals the distribution over the number of referenced sources, branching, and backtracking events executed by current DR systems, motivating future directions for improving their search mechanisms and grounding capabilities. The benchmark is available at https://github.com/microsoft/LiveDRBench.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2508.04183

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Existing QA benchmarks, both general and deep research specific, focus on short, easily-verifiable factual answers and do not capture the long-form, multi-source synthesis required by DR.

    “Typical QA benchmarks, both general [14, 17, 21, 29] and deep research specific [5, 13], focus on short, easily-verifiable factual answers and do not capture the long-form, multi-source synthesis required by DR”

    From ResearchRubrics: A Benchmark of Prompts and Rubrics For Evaluating Deep Research Agents (2025) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Introduction (p. 3) distinguishes typical multi-hop QA benchmarks from deep research tasks requiring more intensive search and reasoning, and describes some benchmarks as evaluating a single final answer. But Background & Related Work (p. 5) says most deep-research evaluation efforts assess long-form reports. The source therefore does not support the claim that deep-research-specific benchmarks generally focus on short factual answers. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Prahaladh Chandrahasan, Jiahe Jin, Zhihan Zhang, Tevin Wang, Andy Tang, Lucy Mo, Morteza Ziyadi, Leonardo FR Ribeiro, Zimeng Qiu, Markus Dreyer, et al. Deep research comparator: A platform for fine-grained human annotations of deep research agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.05495 , 2025. · arXiv
  2. Jo˜ ao Coelho, Jingjie Ning, Jingyuan He, Kangrui Mao, Abhijay Paladugu, Pranav Setlur, Jiahe Jin, Jamie Callan, Jo˜ ao Magalh˜ aes, Bruno Martins, and Chenyan Xiong. Deepresearchgym: A free, transparent, and reproducible evaluation sandbox for deep research, 2025. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2505.19253 .
  3. Alphaeus Dmonte, Roland Oruche, Marcos Zampieri, Prasad Calyam, and Isabelle Augenstein. Claim verification in the age of large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14317 , 2024. · arXiv
  4. Mingxuan Du, Benfeng Xu, Chiwei Zhu, Xiaorui Wang, and Zhendong Mao. Deepresearch bench: A comprehensive benchmark for deep research agents, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2506. 11763 .
  5. Angela Fan, Yacine Jernite, Ethan Perez, David Grangier, Jason Weston, and Michael Auli. Eli5: Long form question answering. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 3558-3567, 2019.
  6. FutureSearch, :, Nikos I. Bosse, Jon Evans, Robert G. Gambee, Daniel Hnyk, Peter M¨ uhlbacher, Lawrence Phillips, Dan Schwarz, and Jack Wildman. Deep research bench: Evaluating ai web research agents, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.06287 . · arXiv
  7. Ameya Godbole, Nicholas Monath, Seungyeon Kim, Ankit Singh Rawat, Andrew McCallum, and Manzil Zaheer. Analysis of plan-based retrieval for grounded text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10490 , 2024. · arXiv
  8. Jacqueline He, Howard Yen, Margaret Li, Shuyue Stella Li, Zhiyuan Zeng, Weijia Shi, Yulia Tsvetkov, Danqi Chen, Pang Wei Koh, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Precise information control in long-form text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.06589 , 2025. · arXiv
  9. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Anya Chen, and Spencer Ball. Cuad: An expert-annotated nlp dataset for legal contract review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.06268 , 2021. · arXiv
  10. Xanh Ho, Anh-Khoa Duong Nguyen, Saku Sugawara, and Akiko Aizawa. Constructing a multi-hop qa dataset for comprehensive evaluation of reasoning steps. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics , pages 6609-6625, 2020.
  11. Yuxuan Huang, Yihang Chen, Haozheng Zhang, Kang Li, Meng Fang, Linyi Yang, Xiaoguang Li, Lifeng Shang, Songcen Xu, Jianye Hao, Kun Shao, and Jun Wang. Deep research agents: A systematic examination and roadmap, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.18096 . · arXiv
  12. Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P Goucher, Adam Perelman, Aditya Ramesh, Aidan Clark, AJ Ostrow, Akila Welihinda, Alan Hayes, Alec Radford, et al. Gpt-4o system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276 , 2024. · arXiv
  13. Hao Kang and Chenyan Xiong. Researcharena: Benchmarking llms' ability to collect and organize information as research agents. arXiv e-prints , pages arXiv-2406, 2024.
  14. Satyapriya Krishna, Kalpesh Krishna, Anhad Mohananey, Steven Schwarcz, Adam Stambler, Shyam Upadhyay, and Manaal Faruqui. Fact, fetch, and reason: A unified evaluation of retrievalaugmented generation, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.12941 . · arXiv
  15. Xiaoxi Li, Jiajie Jin, Guanting Dong, Hongjin Qian, Yutao Zhu, Yongkang Wu, Ji-Rong Wen, and Zhicheng Dou. Webthinker: Empowering large reasoning models with deep research capability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21776 , 2025. · arXiv
  16. Nelson F Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 12:157-173, 2024.
  17. Dasha Metropolitansky and Jonathan Larson. Veritrail: Closed-domain hallucination detection with traceability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.21786 , 2025. · arXiv
  18. Gr´ egoire Mialon, Cl´ ementine Fourrier, Thomas Wolf, Yann LeCun, and Thomas Scialom. Gaia: a benchmark for general ai assistants. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023.
  19. Long Phan, Alice Gatti, Ziwen Han, Nathaniel Li, Josephina Hu, Hugh Zhang, Chen Bo Calvin Zhang, Mohamed Shaaban, John Ling, Sean Shi, et al. Humanity's last exam. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14249 , 2025. · arXiv
  20. Yijia Shao, Yucheng Jiang, Theodore A Kanell, Peter Xu, Omar Khattab, and Monica S Lam. Assisting in writing wikipedia-like articles from scratch with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14207 , 2024. · arXiv
  21. Wenxuan Shi, Haochen Tan, Chuqiao Kuang, Xiaoguang Li, Xiaozhe Ren, Chen Zhang, Hanting Chen, Yasheng Wang, Lifeng Shang, Fisher Yu, et al. Pangu deepdiver: Adaptive search intensity scaling via open-web reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24332 , 2025. · arXiv
  22. Jianghui Wang, Vinay Joshi, Saptarshi Majumder, Xu Chao, Bin Ding, Ziqiong Liu, Pratik Prabhanjan Brahma, Dong Li, Zicheng Liu, and Emad Barsoum. Geak: Introducing triton kernel ai agent & evaluation benchmarks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.23194 , 2025. · arXiv
  23. Jason Wei, Zhiqing Sun, Spencer Papay, Scott McKinney, Jeffrey Han, Isa Fulford, Hyung Won Chung, Alex Tachard Passos, William Fedus, and Amelia Glaese. Browsecomp: A simple yet challenging benchmark for browsing agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12516 , 2025a. · arXiv
  24. Jason Wei, Zhiqing Sun, Spencer Papay, Scott McKinney, Jeffrey Han, Isa Fulford, Hyung Won Chung, Alex Tachard Passos, William Fedus, and Amelia Glaese. Browsecomp: A simple yet challenging benchmark for browsing agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12516 , 2025b. xAI. Grok 3 beta - the age of reasoning agents. https://x.ai/news/grok-3 . Accessed: 202508-04. · arXiv
  25. Renjun Xu and Jingwen Peng. A comprehensive survey of deep research: Systems, methodologies, and applications, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.12594 . · arXiv
  26. Tianze Xu, Pengrui Lu, Lyumanshan Ye, Xiangkun Hu, and Pengfei Liu. Researcherbench: Evaluating deep ai research systems on the frontiers of scientific inquiry. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.16280 , 2025. · arXiv
  27. Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William W. Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D. Manning. HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , 2018.
  28. Yuxiang Zheng, Dayuan Fu, Xiangkun Hu, Xiaojie Cai, Lyumanshan Ye, Pengrui Lu, and Pengfei Liu. Deepresearcher: Scaling deep research via reinforcement learning in real-world environments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.03160 , 2025. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Java, A., Khandelwal, A., Midigeshi, S., Halfaker, A., Deshpande, A., Goyal, N., Gupta, A., Natarajan, N., & Sharma, A.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W6947974274
Cited by
0
References
1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
deep research, task definition, benchmark, report generation, source grounding, reasoning traces, large language models, prior art search, materials discovery

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review