PreprintCited by 73Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorWeb Data Mining and AnalysisTopic Modeling

WideSearch: Benchmarking Agentic Broad Info-Seeking

Open access
Wong, Ryan, Wang, Jiawei, Zhao, Junjie, Chen, Li, Gao, Yan, Zhang, Long, Zhou, Xuan, Wang, Zuo +5 more·2025·arXiv

Abstract

From professional research to everyday planning, many tasks are bottlenecked by wide-scale information seeking, which is more repetitive than cognitively complex. With the rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs), automated search agents powered by LLMs offer a promising solution to liberate humans from this tedious work. However, the capability of these agents to perform such "wide-context" collection reliably and completely remains largely unevaluated due to a lack of suitable benchmarks. To bridge this gap, we introduce WideSearch, a new benchmark engineered to evaluate agent reliability on these large-scale collection tasks. The benchmark features 200 manually curated questions (100 in English, 100 in Chinese) from over 15 diverse domains, grounded in real user queries. Each task requires agents to collect large-scale atomic information, which could be verified one by one objectively, and arrange it into a well-organized output. A rigorous five-stage quality control pipeline ensures the difficulty, completeness, and verifiability of the dataset. We benchmark over 10 state-of-the-art agentic search systems, including single-agent, multi-agent frameworks, and end-to-end commercial systems. Most systems achieve overall success rates near 0\%, with the best performer reaching just 5\%. However, given sufficient time, cross-validation by multiple human testers can achieve a near 100\% success rate. These results demonstrate that present search agents have critical deficiencies in large-scale information seeking, underscoring urgent areas for future research and development in agentic search. Our dataset, evaluation pipeline, and benchmark results have been publicly released at https://widesearch-seed.github.io/

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

WideSearch is a new 200-task benchmark (100 English, 100 Chinese) for evaluating LLM search agents on broad, large-scale information collection into structured tables. Across over 10 state-of-the-art systems, table-level success rates are near 0%, with the best multi-agent system reaching only 5.1%, while humans given ample time reach 20%.

Key findings

  • Most evaluated agentic search systems achieve overall success rates near 0%; the best performer reaches 5.1% (multi-agent OpenAI o3, Avg@4), and single-agent OpenAI o3 reaches 4.5%.
  • Multi-agent frameworks consistently outperform single-agent modes on WideSearch, e.g., multi-agent OpenAI o3 reaches 5.1% SR vs. 4.5% for single-agent OpenAI o3, and higher row/item F1 scores.
  • Item-level F1 can approach 80% with sufficient retries (Kimi K2, 128 attempts), but table-level success remains below 20%, showing the bottleneck is completeness and fidelity at scale rather than finding individual facts.
  • Human single-player success is 20.0%, with row-level F1 69.2% and item-level F1 82.4%; automated evaluation consistency with human judgment exceeds 97.8% across judge models.

Methods

  • The benchmark contains 200 manually curated questions (100 English, 100 Chinese) from real user queries across 18 topics, built through a five-stage quality-control pipeline including parametric knowledge filtering, difficulty pruning, and iterative validation.
  • Human annotation study: 30 participants completed a representative subset of 100 tasks (50 Chinese, 50 English) with dual annotation; average completion time was 2.33 hours and average unique web pages consulted was 44.10.
  • Evaluation uses table alignment and cell-wise verification with exact match, numerical approximation, date matching, URL matching, and LLM-as-a-judge; metrics include Success Rate, Row-level F1, Item-level F1, Avg@N, Pass@N, and Max@N. Experiments compare single-agent, multi-agent, end-to-end commercial systems, and human performance.

Limitations

  • The paper states that even diligent human annotators may commit inadvertent errors in a single session due to the many data points per task, mitigated by a dual-annotation protocol using the higher-accuracy annotator’s data.
  • The paper notes that domain question distribution is uneven, so the domain-level heatmap is intended to identify general patterns rather than provide precise statistical comparison.
  • Evident from the text: the human evaluation used only 20 questions (10 Chinese, 10 English) with 10 annotators, and dedicated “DeepResearch” systems were excluded from automated comparison because they often failed to follow the required single-table output format.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2508.07999

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

  • Findingown data
    § 4.1 Experimental Setup · p. 11

    Dedicated DeepResearch systems often struggle to adhere to specific instructions, frequently returning a long-form report accompanied by multiple tables instead of a single, correctly formatted Markdown table.

    “However, we observed that these systems often struggle to adhere to specific instructions; instead of generating a single, correctly formatted Markdown table, they frequently return a long-form report accompanied by multiple tables.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § 1 Introduction · p. 2

    Item-level F1 scores can approach 80% with sufficient retries.

    “item-level F1 scores can approach 80% with sufficient retries.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingnone given
    § 3.2 Task Construction Methodology · p. 5

    The benchmark encompasses a heterogeneous collection of scenarios spanning multiple distinct industries.

    “Scenario Diversity : The benchmark encompasses a heterogeneous collection of scenarios spanning multiple distinct industries. This cross-domain diversity ensures that we evaluate generalizable agent capabilities, such as planning and synthesis, rather than task-specific or domain-dependent knowledge.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § 3.4 Benchmark Composition and Statistics · p. 6

    The tasks are methodically balanced across 18 diverse topics.

    “Furthermore, to ensure broad applicability and mitigate domain-specific biases, the tasks are methodically balanced across 18 diverse topics, as detailed in Figure 5.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § 1 Introduction · p. 2

    A common and critical class of information-seeking tasks is not adequately evaluated by existing agent benchmarks.

    “Our in-depth analysis of real-world user queries reveals a significant gap: a common and critical class of information-seeking tasks is not adequately evaluated by existing agent benchmarks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 37
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 31
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Evaluation Pipeline: · p. 8

    The average human completion time per task is 2.33 hours (English 2.29, Chinese 2.37).

    “As illustrated in Figure 6a, we report the distribution of human completion times. It directly reflects the significant cognitive and temporal investment demanded by each task, with an overall average completion time of 2.33 hours. This is remarkably consistent across languages, with English tasks averaging 2.29 hours and Chinese tasks averaging 2.37 hours.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 1 Introduction · p. 2

    The overall success rate is exceptionally low, with the top-performing multi-agent framework achieving a mere 5.1%, and individual humans struggling at 20%.

    “The overall success rate is exceptionally low, with even the top-performing multi-agent framework achieving a mere 5.1%, and individual humans also struggling at 20%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Abstract · p. 1

    Most systems achieve overall success rates near 0%, with the best performer reaching just 5%.

    “Most systems achieve overall success rates near 0%, with the best performer reaching just 5%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 1 Introduction · p. 2

    Detailed error analysis traces failure to incomplete planning, lack of reflection to iterate on failed searches, and inability to correctly use retrieved evidence.

    “Our detailed error analysis traces this failure to fundamental deficiencies in advanced agentic capabilities, such as incomplete planning, a lack of reflection to iterate on failed searches, and the inability to correctly use retrieved evidence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Findingnone given
    § 2.2 Search Agents · p. 4

    The performance of existing agents on broad information-seeking tasks hasn't been thoroughly evaluated.

    “However, the performance of these agents on broad information-seeking tasks hasn't been thoroughly evaluated.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 3.5 Evaluation Framework and Metrics · p. 9

    The average answer data volume is 2001.2 for Chinese questions and 938.6 for English questions.

    “| Average Volume | 2001.2 | 938.6 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.2 Main Results · p. 11

    Current advanced large language models exhibit poor planning by struggling to break down complex questions into comprehensive sub-queries, which leads to incomplete information seeking.

    “They exhibit poor planning by struggling to break down complex questions into comprehensive sub-queries, which leads to incomplete information seeking.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given
    § Abstract · p. 1

    Given sufficient time, cross-validation by multiple human testers can achieve a near 100% success rate.

    “However, given sufficient time, cross-validation by multiple human testers can achieve a near 100% success rate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § Abstract · p. 1

    WideSearch comprises 200 manually curated questions, 100 in English and 100 in Chinese, from over 15 diverse domains, grounded in real user queries.

    “The benchmark features 200 manually curated questions (100 in English, 100 in Chinese) from over 15 diverse domains, grounded in real user queries.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 3.4 Benchmark Composition and Statistics · p. 6

    The final WideSearch benchmark comprises 200 high-quality tasks, distributed equally between English and Chinese (100 tasks per language).

    “The rigorous curation pipeline culminates in the final WideSearch benchmark, which comprises 200 high-quality tasks. For robust cross-lingual evaluation, these tasks are distributed equally between English and Chinese (100 tasks per language).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The 200 tasks are representative of real-world wide-scale information seeking.
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.2 Main Results · p. 11

    Current advanced large language models lack reflection and fail to dynamically adjust their search strategy when initial attempts are unsuccessful, often giving up or answering with insufficient data instead of trying new methods.

    “Furthermore, they lack reflection and fail to dynamically adjust their search strategy when initial attempts are unsuccessful, often giving up or answering with insufficient data instead of trying new methods.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The agent initiated the search with a very broad query: 'World bank africa GDP annual growth rate 2022 2023 2024'.

    “The agent initiated the search with a very broad query:”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 5.2 Basic Failure Modes · p. 14

    Models exhibit refusal behaviors for a subset of queries, with two primary patterns: perceiving ambiguity and requesting clarification, or deeming required information too extensive for a single output and directly refusing.

    “Response Refusal. The model exhibits refusal behaviors for a subset of queries. We have identified two primary patterns of refusal: 1. The model perceives ambiguity in the user's question and consequently requests further clarification to narrow the scope of the inquiry. 2. The model deems the required information too extensive to be presented in a single output, leading to a direct refusal to”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The agent failed to generate the necessary subsequent queries to gather the additional required data points for each university.

    “However, it failed to generate the necessary subsequent queries to gather the additional required data points for each university.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § 5.1 Challenges in Advanced Agentic Capabilities · p. 14

    Agents fail to correctly ground final answers in retrieved evidence, either by misinterpreting or disregarding relevant source content, or by failing to validate a source's context and relevance and thus misapplying factually correct but inappropriate information.

    “This failure occurs when the agent does not correctly ground its final answer in the evidence it retrieves, revealing a critical gap between information retrieval and generation. This deficiency typically appears in two ways: the agent either misinterprets or disregards the content of a relevant source, or it fails to validate a source's context and relevance, thereby misapplying factually correct”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The source of the retrieved GPA information was cive.uh.edu, the website for the University of Houston, not Harvard.

    “However, the source of this information was cive.uh.edu, the website for the University of Houston, not Harvard.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The agent failed to validate the context and relevance of the retrieved evidence, incorrectly attributing the GPA requirement from the University of Houston to Harvard University in its final table.

    “The agent failed to validate the context and relevance of the retrieved evidence, incorrectly attributing the GPA requirement from the University of Houston to Harvard University in its final table.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 6 Test-time Scaling · p. 15

    The Item-level F1 score shows significant improvement as the number of attempts increases, reaching close to 80 points with 128 attempts.

    “As shown in Figure 7, the Item-level F1 score shows a significant improvement as the number of attempts increases. With the compute volume of 128 attempts, it even reaches a level close to 80 points.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The agent successfully decomposed the initial part of the task, generating specific queries to identify the top universities in each subject area.

    “The agent successfully decomposed the initial part of the task, generating specific queries to identify the top universities in each subject area”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § 5.1 Challenges in Advanced Agentic Capabilities · p. 14

    When the search engine fails to return relevant information, LLMs sometimes use their internal knowledge, frequently leading to hallucinations where the model fabricates non-existent facts or provides incorrect information conflicting with established knowledge.

    “When the search engine fails to return any relevant information, LLMs sometimes just use their internal knowledge. This frequently leads to”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given
    § 5.2 Basic Failure Modes · p. 14

    A subset of LLMs fails to strictly adhere to output format requirements, such as failing to generate a Markdown table or producing a malformed one.

    “Output Formatting Error. A subset of LLMs fails to strictly adhere to the output format requirements specified in the instructions, such as failing to generate a Markdown table or producing a malformed one.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 4.2 Main Results · p. 12

    Even humans cannot achieve a high success rate in single-player mode; the success rate for a single individual completing the task independently is 20% when given ample time and access to any tools.

    “Experimental results show that even when given ample time and access to any tools, the success rate for a single individual completing the task independently is merely 20%.”
    • Also stated in: § 4.2 Main Results · p. 12 · plain
      “Even humans cannot achieve a high success rate in single-player mode.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 7 Conclusion · p. 15

    Even the most advanced systems have extremely low success rates on table-level tasks, with the top performer achieving only 5%, while most systems score near 0%.

    “The results show that even the most advanced systems have extremely low success rates on table-level tasks, with the top performer achieving only 5%, while most systems score near 0%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The search results provided only aggregated data for the entire region, not the country-specific data required.

    “The search results provided only aggregated data for the entire region, not the country-specific data required.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The agent's search for the future-dated entrance fee information correctly returned no results.

    “The agent's search for this future-dated information correctly returned no results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 5.1 Challenges in Advanced Agentic Capabilities · p. 14

    Even advanced large reasoning models lack a dynamic adjustment mechanism; they tend to abandon the search after an initial failed attempt and proceed to answer based on incomplete information or internal knowledge.

    “However, we find that even advanced large reasoning models lack this dynamic adjustment mechanism. They tend to abandon the search after an initial failed attempt and proceed to answer based on incomplete information or their internal knowledge, reflecting a deficiency in critical thinking and adaptive planning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Some models show a clear advantage in domains like 'Healthcare,' while others excel in topics like 'Automotive' or 'Law.'

    “some models show a clear advantage in domains like”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given
    § 5.2 Basic Failure Modes · p. 14

    Tasks are prematurely terminated because the model generated overly verbose intermediate steps or became trapped in ineffective loops, causing total input to exceed the model's maximum context window.

    “Context Length Exceedance. The task is prematurely terminated because the model generated overly verbose intermediate steps or became trapped in ineffective loops, causing the total input to exceed the model's maximum context window.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The agent issued a correct query and retrieved a snippet of text stating a GPA requirement of '3.0/4.0'.

    “It issued a correct query and retrieved a snippet of text stating a GPA requirement of”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given
    § 5.2 Basic Failure Modes · p. 14

    Tool invocation errors are one of the most common failures, typically caused by the model generating incorrect parameter formats, omitting necessary arguments, or attempting to call a non-existent tool, leading to an API call failure.

    “Tool Invocation Error. This is one of the most common failures, typically caused by the model generating incorrect parameter formats, omitting necessary arguments, or attempting to call a non-existent tool, leading to an API call failure.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.2 Main Results · p. 11

    Current advanced large language models show fundamental weaknesses when performing large-scale information-seeking tasks, with failures stemming from fundamental cognitive deficits beyond simple search inaccuracies.

    “Current advanced large language models show fundamental weaknesses when performing large-scale information-seeking tasks, with failures stemming from fundamental cognitive deficits beyond simple search inaccuracies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 3.3 Data Curation and Validation Process · p. 6

    The automated evaluation for each task is calibrated to and predictive of human judgment.

    “Most critically, it also ensures that the automated evaluation for each task is calibrated to and predictive of human judgment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 3.3 Data Curation and Validation Process · p. 6

    A multi-stage data curation and validation pipeline ensures every question adheres to the design principles.

    “To ensure every question in the benchmark rigorously adheres to the design principles, we implement a multi-stage data curation and validation pipeline, as illustrated in Figure 3.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 2.1 Benchmarks for Search Agents · p. 3

    Unlike existing benchmarks that test deep reasoning on a single query, WideSearch evaluates an agent's ability to gather broad information across multiple parallel entities by requiring it to populate a structured table.

    “Unlike existing benchmarks that test deep reasoning on a single query, WideSearch evaluates an agent's ability to gather broad information across multiple parallel entities by requiring it to populate a structured table.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § 3.4 Benchmark Composition and Statistics · p. 6

    A human annotation study with 30 participants was conducted on a representative subset of 100 tasks (50 Chinese, 50 English).

    “To quantitatively substantiate the complexity inherent in our benchmark, we conduct a detailed human annotation study with 30 participants. This evaluation is performed on a representative subset of 100 tasks, drawn equally from the Chinese and English pools (50 tasks each).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 3.5.1 Automated Evaluation Pipeline · p. 9

    An agent's response is assigned a score of zero if it is not a valid Markdown table or if its column headers do not match the ground truth in number and name.

    “An agent's response is immediately assigned a score of zero if it is not a valid Markdown table that can be correctly parsed, or if its column headers do not match the ground truth in number and name.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Abstract · p. 1

    A rigorous five-stage quality control pipeline ensures the difficulty, completeness, and verifiability of the dataset.

    “A rigorous five-stage quality control pipeline ensures the difficulty, completeness, and verifiability of the dataset.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § 1 Introduction · p. 2

    WideSearch is the first benchmark specifically designed for wide-context information gathering.

    “we introduce WideSearch, the first benchmark specifically designed for this purpose, supported by a sophisticated multi-stage data collection and verification framework, as well as a hybrid automated evaluation system that ensures objectivity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 3.3 Data Curation and Validation Process · p. 6

    Tasks that a human annotator completes in less than 10 minutes or by consulting fewer than 10 unique web pages are discarded.

    “Based on our current heuristics, this includes any task that a human annotator completes in less than 10 minutes or by consulting fewer than 10 unique web pages.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 3.2 Task Construction Methodology · p. 5

    WideSearch tasks require extensive informational breadth, necessitating a high volume of search interactions and a prolonged, multi-step procedural trajectory.

    “High Search Volume and Breadth : Tasks are defined by their extensive informational breadth, requiring the agent to collate numerous distinct data points across multiple entities. This inherent breadth necessitates a high volume of search interactions and a prolonged, multi-step procedural trajectory for completion, distinguishing them from tasks that require only a singular, deep line of inquiry.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 3.3 Data Curation and Validation Process · p. 6

    A task is only accepted into the final benchmark after passing all filtering stages and the final iterative validation loop.

    “A task is only accepted into the final benchmark after successfully passing through all filtering stages and the final iterative validation loop.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 1 Introduction · p. 2

    WideSearch diverges from DeepSearch and DeepResearch; its primary challenge is operational scale and fidelity, not cognitive difficulty.

    “Instead, WideSearch tackles tasks whose primary challenge is not cognitive difficulty but operational scale and fidelity-the”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.3 Data Curation and Validation Process · p. 6

    WideSearch is a robust and reliable testbed for advanced search agents.

    “This final validation loop provides a strong guarantee that WideSearch is a robust and reliable testbed for advanced search agents.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The automated evaluation pipeline with GPT-4.1 as judge is reliable and objective.
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 3.3 Data Curation and Validation Process · p. 6

    The five-stage pipeline ensures that every task is grounded in a real-world need, demonstrably complex, verifiable, and resistant to simple memorization.

    “This rigorous, five-stage pipeline ensures that every task in the final WideSearch benchmark is grounded in a real-world need, demonstrably complex, verifiable, and resistant to simple memorization.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Evaluation Pipeline: · p. 8

    Each task was independently completed by two annotators, and only the data from the annotator with higher accuracy was used.

    “To mitigate the impact of such potential errors and establish a robust performance ceiling, we implement a dual-annotation protocol. Each task is independently completed by two annotators, and we exclusively utilize the data from the annotator who achieved higher accuracy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 3.3 Data Curation and Validation Process · p. 6

    Parametric knowledge filtering ensures that all tasks in WideSearch genuinely evaluate an agent's search and synthesis capabilities.

    “This critical filtering step ensures that all tasks in WideSearch genuinely evaluate an agent's search and synthesis capabilities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 3.5.1 Automated Evaluation Pipeline · p. 9

    GPT-4.1-2025-04-14 is used as the default judge LLM.

    “We use the GPT-4.1-2025-04-14 as the default judge LLM.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 3.2 Task Construction Methodology · p. 5

    Each WideSearch task is associated with a deterministically verifiable set of facts, allowing objective, consistent, and reproducible scoring.

    “Objective Verifiability : Each task is associated with a deterministically verifiable set of facts. This allows for objective, consistent, and reproducible scoring against a predefined gold standard.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 1 Introduction · p. 2

    The bottleneck is ensuring absolute completeness and accuracy of each atomic unit; any single omission, error, or extra data results in total failure of the task execution.

    “Rather, the bottleneck is that we must ensure the absolute completeness and accuracy of each atomic unit of information within a large-scale search. Any single data omission or error, or the integration of extra data into the final result, results in total failure of the task execution.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Abstract · p. 1

    Each WideSearch task requires agents to collect large-scale atomic information that can be verified one by one objectively and arranged into a well-organized output.

    “Each task requires agents to collect large-scale atomic information, which could be verified one by one objectively, and arrange it into a well-organized output.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 3.2 Task Construction Methodology · p. 5

    WideSearch tasks are designed to exceed the bounds of an LLM's parametric knowledge, so successful completion requires active web search.

    “Reliance on External Tools : Tasks are explicitly designed to exceed the bounds of an LLM's parametric knowledge. Successful completion is therefore contingent upon the agent's ability to engage in active, iterative, and effective web search, rather than relying on memorized information.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given
    § Abstract · p. 1

    WideSearch is a new benchmark engineered to evaluate agent reliability on large-scale collection tasks.

    “we introduce WideSearch, a new benchmark engineered to evaluate agent reliability on these large-scale collection tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The fabricated fee response was not based on any retrieved evidence but was instead generated from the model's internal parameters, resulting in a factual inconsistency.

    “This response was not based on any retrieved evidence but was instead generated from the model's internal parameters, resulting in a factual inconsistency.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This error highlights a fundamental gap between information retrieval and faithful generation, where the agent does not properly ground its answer in correctly attributed evidence.

    “This error highlights a fundamental gap between information retrieval and faithful generation, where the agent does not properly ground its answer in correctly attributed evidence.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 6 Test-time Scaling · p. 15

    Large-scale information retrieval on a fixed topic is an extremely difficult task, requiring comprehensive and accurate search results.

    “This strongly suggests that large-scale information retrieval on a fixed topic is an extremely difficult task. It requires not only comprehensive but also accurate search results.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Because the distribution of questions per domain is uneven, the heatmap serves primarily to identify general patterns rather than to provide a precise statistical comparison.

    “As the distribution of questions per domain is uneven, the heatmap serves primarily to identify general patterns rather than to provide a precise statistical comparison.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The greater challenge of domains such as 'Academics' and 'Transportation' for all models is likely due to the need for highly specialized and nuanced information.

    “likely due to the need for highly specialized and nuanced information.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 7 Conclusion · p. 15

    The core deficiencies in current agent systems lie in a lack of advanced agentic capabilities, such as the inability to decompose complex problems into comprehensive sub-queries, a lack of reflection and iteration after initial search failures, and the failure to correctly utilize retrieved evidence.

    “The core deficiencies in current agent systems lie in a lack of advanced agentic capabilities, such as the inability to decompose complex problems into comprehensive sub-queries, a lack of reflection and iteration after initial search failures, and the failure to correctly utilize retrieved evidence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationown data

    This case underscores the challenge of ensuring that LLMs remain strictly grounded in external sources, especially when those sources do not contain the requested information.

    “This case underscores the challenge of ensuring that LLMs remain strictly grounded in external sources, especially when those sources do not contain the requested information.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The omission of subsequent queries demonstrates a failure in comprehensive task planning, as the agent did not create a complete set of subtasks needed to fulfill all aspects of the user's request, resulting in a final output with significant information gaps.

    “This omission demonstrates a failure in comprehensive task planning, as the agent did not create a complete set of subtasks needed to fulfill all aspects of the user's request, resulting in a final output with significant information gaps.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
60 of 60
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The ground-truth answers in WideSearch are static over time and independent of geographical, ideological, or socio-cultural contexts.

    “Temporal and Contextual Invariance : The ground-truth answers exhibit high stability. They are static over time and are independent of geographical, ideological, or socio-cultural contexts, thereby guaranteeing the benchmark's long-term validity and global applicability.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The entire corpus of information required to formulate a complete answer is publicly accessible via standard web search engines.

    “Public Accessibility : The entire corpus of information required to formulate a complete answer is guaranteed to be publicly accessible via standard web search engines, ensuring that tasks are solvable without privileged access to information.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The automated evaluation pipeline with GPT-4.1 as judge is reliable and objective.

    “We use the GPT-4.1-2025-04-14 as the default judge LLM.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 200 tasks are representative of real-world wide-scale information seeking.

    “The benchmark features 200 manually curated questions (100 in English, 100 in Chinese) from over 15 diverse domains, grounded in real user queries.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    WideSearch tasks have inherent parallelism.

    “Recognizing the inherent parallelism in WideSearch tasks, we evaluate a multi-agent framework to test the effectiveness of a”
5 of 5

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?

  • Snippet reliance occurs in production agent runs, characterized by using a search-result snippet without validating that its source supports the submitted claim.

    “snippet reliance (using a search-result snippet without validating that its source supports the submitted claim) [Wong et al., 2025]”

    From WANDR: A Benchmark for Wide and Deep Research (2026) · cites this paper as Wong et al., 2025

    Section 5.1 (p. 14) identifies failure to validate a retrieved source’s context and relevance as an agent error. Appendix E (p. 25) gives an example in which an agent used a search-result snippet about the University of Houston to answer a question about Harvard. The example comes from benchmark agent trajectories, however, not production runs. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premature stopping occurs in production agent runs, characterized by giving up after an initial search yields insufficient information.

    “premature stopping (giving up after an initial search yields insufficient information) [Wong et al., 2025]”

    From WANDR: A Benchmark for Wide and Deep Research (2026) · cites this paper as Wong et al., 2025

    Section 5.1 (p. 14) reports that agents tend to abandon a search after an initial attempt returns no results or insufficient information. This supports the description of premature stopping, but the passage concerns agents analyzed in WideSearch; it does not establish that the behavior occurs in production agent runs. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Volume collapse occurs in production agent runs, characterized by incomplete query decomposition and insufficient retrieval at scale, sometimes followed by hallucinated values.

    “volume collapse (incomplete query decomposition and insufficient retrieval at scale, sometimes followed by hallucinated values) [Lan et al., 2025, Wong et al., 2025]”

    From WANDR: A Benchmark for Wide and Deep Research (2026) · cites this paper as Wong et al., 2025

    Section 5.1 (pp. 13–14) identifies incomplete query decomposition and inadequate recall in large-scale searches, and reports that failed retrieval can be followed by fabricated or incorrect facts. The paper establishes these patterns in benchmarked agent runs, not production runs; it does not establish the claim's production setting. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • This is roughly one sixth of WideSearch's reported 2.33-hour average for one human completion; that study additionally used two independent annotators per task [Wong et al., 2025].

    “This is roughly one sixth of WideSearch's reported 2.33-hour average for one human completion; that study additionally used two independent annotators per task [Wong et al., 2025].”

    From WANDR: A Benchmark for Wide and Deep Research (2026) · cites this paper as Wong et al., 2025

  • WideSearch also sources tasks from real user queries and grades populated tables cell by cell, but primarily tests broad collection with comparatively shallow per-item fields.

    “WideSearch [Wong et al., 2025] also sources tasks from real user queries and grades populated tables cell by cell, but primarily tests broad collection with comparatively shallow per-item fields.”

    From WANDR: A Benchmark for Wide and Deep Research (2026) · cites this paper as Wong et al., 2025

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Consistency does not exceed 97.8% for every judge

    Minor

    The lowest consistency reported in Table 3 is exactly 97.8%, not greater than 97.8%.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wong, R., Wang, J., Zhao, J., Chen, L., Gao, Y., Zhang, L., Zhou, X., Wang, Z., Xiang, K., Zhang, G., Huang, W., Wang, Y., & Wang, K.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4414430079
Cited by
0
References
32
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 › Information Systems › Web Data Mining and Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
agentic search, benchmark dataset, multi-agent systems

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-22.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-22.

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