WideSearch: Benchmarking Agentic Broad Info-Seeking
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
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
- Findingown data§ Evaluation Pipeline: · p. 8
On average, annotators consult 44.10 unique web pages per task (48.74 for Chinese, 39.46 for English).
“Furthermore, to quantify the procedural depth, Figure 6b shows the number of unique source web pages that annotators consulted. The breadth of research required is extensive; on average, annotators need to consult 44.10 unique web pages per task (48.74 for Chinese and 39.46 for English).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Certain domains, such as 'Academics' and 'Transportation,' prove to be more challenging for all models.
“Second, certain domains, such as”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 6 Test-time Scaling · p. 15
Even with 128 attempts, the table-level score only reaches a level below 20 points.
“Quite the opposite, even with 128 attempts, the table-level score only reaches a level below 20 points.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The multi-agent framework provides a consistent performance improvement across nearly all models and domains.
“First, the multi-agent framework provides a consistent performance improvement across nearly all models and domains.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning§ 4.2 Main Results · p. 12
Multi-agent mode outperforms single-agent mode on WideSearch tasks.
“Multi-agent mode outperforms the single-agent mode on WideSearch.”
- Also stated in: § 4.2 Main Results · p. 12 · plain
“The multi-agent framework, using a”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 4.2 Main Results · p. 12 · plain
- Findingown data§ 5.1 Challenges in Advanced Agentic Capabilities · p. 14
LLMs often fail to fully decompose complex, multi-faceted search topics into a comprehensive and complementary set of sub-queries, leading them to miss key constraints or scopes of inquiry and fail to gather sufficient information.
“When faced with complex, multi-faceted search topics, LLMs often fail to fully decompose the user's intent into a comprehensive and complementary set of sub-queries. This leads them to miss key constraints or scopes of inquiry during multi-turn searches, failing to gather sufficient information to formulate a final answer.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning§ 4.2 Main Results · p. 12
The multi-agent framework shows a distinct advantage in F1 scores over single-agent mode.
“Although absolute success rates are low for both, the multi-agent system shows a distinct advantage in F1 scores, which measure partial correctness.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 5.1 Challenges in Advanced Agentic Capabilities · p. 13
Recall is significantly lower than Precision across all test subsets.
“A particularly prominent phenomenon is that Recall is significantly lower than Precision across all test subsets, as shown in Table 5.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.2 Main Results · p. 11
Current advanced large language models demonstrate faulty evidence use by misinterpreting or misattributing content.
“Even when they successfully find relevant information, they demonstrate faulty evidence use by misinterpreting or misattributing the content.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.2 Main Results · p. 12
Several leading commercial models tested, including Gemini 2.5 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4, and OpenAI o3, hover around a 5% table-level success rate.
“Several leading commercial models tested in the experiment, including Gemini 2.5 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4, and OpenAI o3, hover around a 5% table-level success rate.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Instead of recognizing this limitation and adapting its approach, the agent abandoned the task.
“Instead of recognizing this limitation and adapting its approach-for instance, by iterating through individual countries or searching for the specific World Bank data portal-the agent abandoned the task.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data§ 4.3 Consistency with Human Evaluation · p. 13
The consistency between the automated evaluation pipeline and human assessment is exceptionally high, exceeding 97.8% for all tested judge models.
“As shown, the consistency between our pipeline's evaluation and human assessment is exceptionally high, exceeding 97.8% for all tested judge models, including both thinking and non-thinking variants.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
When generating the final table for Everglades National Park, instead of indicating that the information was unavailable, the agent fabricated a specific fee of '$15'.
“However, when generating the final table for Everglades National Park, instead of indicating that the information was unavailable (e.g., with”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 4.2 Main Results · p. 11
Existing models still lack advanced agentic abilities.
“Existing models still lack the advanced agentic abilities.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductreasoning§ 3.3 Data Curation and Validation Process · p. 6
The iterative validation loop ensures that automated metrics reliably mirror human assessment.
“This cycle continues until the automated metrics reliably mirror human assessment, ensuring the integrity and reliability of the benchmark.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 1 Introduction · p. 2
The failure of current systems does not stem from an inability to find individual facts.
“this failure does not stem from an inability to find individual facts-item-level F1 scores can approach 80% with sufficient retries.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ Abstract · p. 1
Present search agents have critical deficiencies in large-scale information seeking.
“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.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ Evaluation Pipeline: · p. 8
The number of unique web pages consulted serves as a strong proxy for the non-trivial nature of the information-seeking process.
“It therefore serves as a strong proxy for the non-trivial nature of the information-seeking process.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 7 Conclusion · p. 15
The root cause of failure is not the inability to find individual pieces of information (item-level F1 scores can be high), but rather the difficulty in finding all the atomic information accurately and comprehensively.
“In-depth analysis reveals that the root cause of failure is not the inability to find individual pieces of information (item-level F1 scores can be high), but rather the difficulty in finding all the atomic information accurately and comprehensively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 4.3 Consistency with Human Evaluation · p. 13
The high consistency between the automated pipeline and human assessment underscores the effectiveness and reliability of the proposed evaluation methodology.
“This high level of correlation underscores the effectiveness and reliability of our proposed evaluation methodology.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The collaborative approach is effective at enhancing the quality and relevance of the search results, regardless of the topic.
“This suggests that the collaborative approach is effective at enhancing the quality and relevance of the search results, regardless of the topic.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductown data§ 4.2 Main Results · p. 13
The ground truth for WideSearch was constructed through multiple annotators performing repeated searches, revisions, and cross-validations to ensure accuracy.
“The construction of the”
- Also stated in: § 4.1 Experimental Setup · p. 11 · plain
“The process of annotating the ground truth for WideSearch is a very arduous task, requiring multiple annotators to repeatedly search and cross-validate information.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 4.1 Experimental Setup · p. 11 · plain
- Interpretationown data§ 4.2 Main Results · p. 12
Current commercial AI assistants cannot yet seek information at a large scale.
“Current commercial AI assistants cannot yet seek information at a large scale.”
- Also stated in: § 4.2 Main Results · p. 12 · plain
“the results of the WideSearch test show that they still struggle with information-seeking tasks that require large-scale and high-precision output.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 4.2 Main Results · p. 12 · plain
- Interpretationreasoning§ 4.2 Main Results · p. 11
Basic deficiencies in planning, dynamic adjustment, and reasoning are the primary reasons for the extremely low success rates of current advanced large language models on complex tasks.
“These basic deficiencies in planning, dynamic adjustment, and reasoning are the primary reasons for their extremely low success rates on such complex tasks.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 5.1 Challenges in Advanced Agentic Capabilities · p. 13
Inadequate recall is the primary bottleneck constraining model performance on WideSearch.
“This finding reveals a critical deficiency in the current model's ability to capture comprehensive information, identifying that”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The agent's abandonment of the task demonstrates a lack of a critical reflective mechanism to diagnose search failures and dynamically adjust its plan.
“It concluded that it was unable to retrieve the information, demonstrating a lack of a critical reflective mechanism to diagnose search failures and dynamically adjust its plan.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data§ 7 Conclusion · p. 15
Current search agents have critical flaws in performing large-scale, high-fidelity information gathering tasks.
“In summary, the study demonstrates that current search agents have critical flaws in performing large-scale, high-fidelity information gathering tasks.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ 4.2 Main Results · p. 12
The multi-agent framework's superior performance is due to its architecture, where a planner decomposes a broad query into parallel sub-tasks assigned to different agents.
“This superior performance is due to its architecture, where a planner decomposes a broad query into parallel sub-tasks assigned to different agents.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: WideSearch tasks have inherent parallelism.
- Interpretationown data§ 6 Test-time Scaling · p. 15
A single information-seeking action within WideSearch is not a particularly difficult task.
“This fully indicates that a single information-seeking action within WideSearch is not a particularly difficult task.”
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. 8The 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 1 Introduction · p. 2The 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ Abstract · p. 1Most 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 1 Introduction · p. 2Detailed 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Findingnone given§ 2.2 Search Agents · p. 4The 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 3.5 Evaluation Framework and Metrics · p. 9The 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.2 Main Results · p. 11Current 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Findingnone given§ Abstract · p. 1Given 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ Abstract · p. 1WideSearch 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 3.4 Benchmark Composition and Statistics · p. 6The 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. 11Current 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataThe 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 5.2 Basic Failure Modes · p. 14Models 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataThe 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingreasoning§ 5.1 Challenges in Advanced Agentic Capabilities · p. 14Agents 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataThe 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 6 Test-time Scaling · p. 15The 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataThe 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingnone given§ 5.1 Challenges in Advanced Agentic Capabilities · p. 14When 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ 5.2 Basic Failure Modes · p. 14A 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 4.2 Main Results · p. 12Even 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- Also stated in: § 4.2 Main Results · p. 12 · plain
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 7 Conclusion · p. 15Even 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataThe 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataThe 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ 5.1 Challenges in Advanced Agentic Capabilities · p. 14Even 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataSome 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ 5.2 Basic Failure Modes · p. 14Tasks 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataThe 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Findingnone given§ 5.2 Basic Failure Modes · p. 14Tool 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ 4.2 Main Results · p. 11Current 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoning§ 3.3 Data Curation and Validation Process · p. 6The 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 claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone given§ 3.3 Data Curation and Validation Process · p. 6A 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationnone given§ 2.1 Benchmarks for Search Agents · p. 3Unlike 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductown data§ 3.4 Benchmark Composition and Statistics · p. 6A 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 claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone given§ 3.5.1 Automated Evaluation Pipeline · p. 9An 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Study design and conductnone given§ Abstract · p. 1A 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Premisenone given§ 1 Introduction · p. 2WideSearch 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 claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoning§ 3.3 Data Curation and Validation Process · p. 6Tasks 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 claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoning§ 3.2 Task Construction Methodology · p. 5WideSearch 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone given§ 3.3 Data Curation and Validation Process · p. 6A 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ 1 Introduction · p. 2WideSearch 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ 3.3 Data Curation and Validation Process · p. 6WideSearch 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. 6The 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoning§ Evaluation Pipeline: · p. 8Each 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Study design and conductreasoning§ 3.3 Data Curation and Validation Process · p. 6Parametric 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone given§ 3.5.1 Automated Evaluation Pipeline · p. 9GPT-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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Study design and conductnone given§ 3.2 Task Construction Methodology · p. 5Each 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ 1 Introduction · p. 2The 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 claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone given§ Abstract · p. 1Each 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 claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoning§ 3.2 Task Construction Methodology · p. 5WideSearch 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 claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisenone given§ Abstract · p. 1WideSearch 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThis 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ 6 Test-time Scaling · p. 15Large-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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataBecause 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
InterpretationreasoningThe 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ 7 Conclusion · p. 15The 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationown dataThis 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe 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
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”
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 measuredPremature 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 measuredVolume 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 measuredThis 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
MinorThe lowest consistency reported in Table 3 is exactly 97.8%, not greater than 97.8%.
“exceeding 97.8% for all tested judge models”
“| Doubao-Seed-1.6 (Non-Thinking) | 97.8 |”
Cites
Natural Questions: A benchmark for question answering research
Kwiatkowski, T., Palomaki, J., Redfield, O., Collins, M., Parikh, A., Alberti, C., Epstein, D., Polosukhin, I., Devlin, J., Lee, K., et al. (2019) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00276 · Cited by 2,069 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Early benchmarks such as Natural Questions [11] and TriviaQA [10] established a foundation for question answering, but often tested information that could be retrieved with a single query or was already contained within a model’s parametric knowledge.”
HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering
Yang, Z., Qi, P., Zhang, S., Bengio, Y., Cohen, W., Salakhutdinov, R., & Manning, C. D. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1259 · Cited by 1,804 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The subsequent development of multi-hop QA datasets, including HotpotQA [30], 2WikiMultiHopQA [7], and Musique [26], increased the complexity by requiring agents to connect multiple pieces of evidence to derive an answer.”
DeepSeek-R1 incentivizes reasoning in LLMs through reinforcement learning
Guo, D., Yang, D., Zhang, H., Song, J., Wang, P., Zhu, Q., Xu, R., Zhang, R., Ma, S., Bi, X., et al. (2025) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09422-z · Cited by 1,701 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The foundation models evaluated in this configuration are: DeepSeek-R1 [6], Doubao-Seed-1.”
Self-citationTriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehension
Joshi, M., Choi, E., Weld, D., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2017) · Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-1147 · Cited by 1,690 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Early benchmarks such as Natural Questions [11] and TriviaQA [10] established a foundation for question answering, but often tested information that could be retrieved with a single query or was already contained within a model’s parametric knowledge.”
Yates, M. (2009) · SIGGRAPH ASIA Animations · doi:10.1145/1665208.1665246 · Cited by 723 · cited 1×
“Following initial breakthroughs from systems like OpenAI’s Deep Research Agents [18] and Google’s Gemini Deep Research [4], a wave of related works emerged.”
DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning
DeepSeek-AI, Guo, D., Yang, D., Zhang, H., Song, J., Wang, P., Zhu, Q., Xu, R., Zhang, R., Ma, S., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.12948 · Cited by 538 · see citing works
Self-citationConstructing A Multi-hop QA Dataset for Comprehensive Evaluation of Reasoning Steps
Ho, X., Duong Nguyen, A.-K., Sugawara, S., & Aizawa, A. (2020) · Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.580 · Cited by 287 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The subsequent development of multi-hop QA datasets, including HotpotQA [30], 2WikiMultiHopQA [7], and Musique [26], increased the complexity by requiring agents to connect multiple pieces of evidence to derive an answer.”
♫ MuSiQue: Multihop Questions via Single-hop Question Composition
Trivedi, H., Balasubramanian, N., Khot, T., & Sabharwal, A. (2022) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00475 · Cited by 283 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The subsequent development of multi-hop QA datasets, including HotpotQA [30], 2WikiMultiHopQA [7], and Musique [26], increased the complexity by requiring agents to connect multiple pieces of evidence to derive an answer.”
WebSailor: Navigating Super-human Reasoning for Web AgentPreprint
Li, K., Zhang, Z.-W., Yin, H.-F., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.02592 · Cited by 232 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Other efforts like WebDancer [28] and WebSailor [13] focus on generating high-quality synthetic data.”
Self-citationZeroSearch: Incentivize the Search Capability of LLMs without Searching
Sun, H., Qiao, Z.-L., Guo, J., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.04588 · Cited by 222 · cited 1×
“To cut down on interaction costs, ZeroSearch [24] trains an LLM to simulate a search engine, R1-Searcher++ [23] improves this by separating internal knowledge from external retrieval with a memory mechanism, and IKEA [8] utilizes the knowledge-boundary enhanced RL to reduce redundant retrieval.”
WebDancer: Towards Autonomous Information Seeking Agency
Wu, J.-L., Li, B., Fang, R.-N., et al. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.22648 · Cited by 204 · cited 1×
“Other efforts like WebDancer [28] and WebSailor [13] focus on generating high-quality synthetic data.”
Self-citationSeed1.5-Thinking: Advancing Superb Reasoning Models with Reinforcement Learning
Chen, B. S. J., Fan, T.-T., Liu, X., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.13914 · Cited by 153 · cited 2×
“6 (Thinking) [21], Doubao-Seed-1.”
InfluentialSelf-citationR1-Searcher++: Incentivizing the Dynamic Knowledge Acquisition of LLMs via Reinforcement Learning
Song, H.-T., Jiang, J.-H., Tian, W.-Q., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.17005 · Cited by 34 · cited 1×
“To cut down on interaction costs, ZeroSearch [24] trains an LLM to simulate a search engine, R1-Searcher++ [23] improves this by separating internal knowledge from external retrieval with a memory mechanism, and IKEA [8] utilizes the knowledge-boundary enhanced RL to reduce redundant retrieval.”
Self-citationReinforced Internal-External Knowledge Synergistic Reasoning for Efficient Adaptive Search Agent
Huang, Z.-Y., Yuan, X.-W., Ju, Y., Zhao, J., & Liu, K. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.07596 · Cited by 31 · cited 1×
“To cut down on interaction costs, ZeroSearch [24] trains an LLM to simulate a search engine, R1-Searcher++ [23] improves this by separating internal knowledge from external retrieval with a memory mechanism, and IKEA [8] utilizes the knowledge-boundary enhanced RL to reduce redundant retrieval.”
Self-citationDeepResearcher: Scaling Deep Research via Reinforcement Learning in Real-world Environments
Zheng, Y., Fu, D., Hu, X., Cai, X., Ye, L., Lu, P., & Liu, P. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.03160 · Cited by 25 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Examples include R1-Searcher [22] and Search-R1 [9], which train on local corpus, and DeepResearcher [31], which uses real search engines.”
Kimi K2: Open Agentic Intelligence
Kimi Team, Bai, Y., Bao, Y., Charles, Y., Chen, C., Chen, G., Chen, H., Chen, H., Chen, J., Chen, N., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.20534 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Self-citationSearch-R1: Training LLMs to Reason and Leverage Search Engines with Reinforcement Learning
Jin, B., Zeng, H., Yue, Z., Yoon, J., Arik, S., Wang, D., Zamani, H., & Han, J. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.09516 · Cited by 13 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Examples include R1-Searcher [22] and Search-R1 [9], which train on local corpus, and DeepResearcher [31], which uses real search engines.”
GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistants
Mialon, G., Fourrier, C., Swift, C., Wolf, T., LeCun, Y., & Scialom, T. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.12983 · Cited by 12 · cited 1× · see citing works
“For instance, GAIA [16] presents challenging multi-hop questions that push the boundaries of reasoning.”
WebThinker: Empowering Large Reasoning Models with Deep Research Capability
Li, X., Jin, J., Dong, G., Qian, H., Wu, Y., Wen, J.-R., Zhu, Y., & Dou, Z. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.21776 · Cited by 7 · cited 1×
“WebThinker [14] uses specialized modules for problem-solving and report-writing, while Alita [20] features a manager agent that can dynamically create MCP tools.”
Spider 2.0: Evaluating Language Models on Real-World Enterprise Text-to-SQL Workflows
Lei, F., Chen, J., Ye, Y., Cao, R., Shin, D., Su, H., Suo, Z., Gao, H., Hu, W., Yin, P., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.07763 · Cited by 7 · cited 1×
“The evaluation of search agents has evolved significantly, moving from simple fact retrieval to complex, multi-step reasoning tasks [12].”
R1-Searcher: Incentivizing the Search Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning
Song, H., Jiang, J., Min, Y., Chen, J., Chen, Z., Zhao, W. X., Fang, L., & Wen, J.-R. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.05592 · Cited by 7 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Examples include R1-Searcher [22] and Search-R1 [9], which train on local corpus, and DeepResearcher [31], which uses real search engines.”
BrowseComp: A Simple Yet Challenging Benchmark for Browsing Agents
Wei, J., Sun, Z., Papay, S., McKinney, S., Han, J., Fulford, I., Chung, H. W., Passos, A. T., Fedus, W., & Glaese, A. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.12516 · Cited by 2 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Benchmarks like BrowseComp-en/zh [27, 32] further elevate the difficulty by designing tasks with intricately coupled entities and deliberate information obfuscation, demanding sophisticated, non-linear exploration to reduce a high degree of initial uncertainty.”
DeepResearch Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Deep Research Agents
Du, M., Xu, B., Zhu, C., Wang, X., & Mao, Z. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.11763 · Cited by 2 · cited 1× · see citing works
“A notable example is the DeepResearch Bench [3], which assesses an agent’s ability to tackle PhD-level questions and synthesize the findings into a detailed, accurate report.”
Qiu, J., Qi, X., Zhang, T., Juan, X., Guo, J., Lu, Y., Wang, Y., Yao, Z., Ren, Q., Jiang, X., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.20286 · Cited by 1 · cited 1× · see citing works
“WebThinker [14] uses specialized modules for problem-solving and report-writing, while Alita [20] features a manager agent that can dynamically create MCP tools.”
Self-citationxbench: Tracking Agents Productivity Scaling with Profession-Aligned Real-World Evaluations
Chen, K., Ren, Y., Liu, Y., Hu, X., Tian, H., Xie, T., Liu, F., Zhang, H., Liu, H., Gong, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.13651 · Cited by 1 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Similarly, Xbench-DeepSearch [2] specifically targets agents’ deep search and tool-use capabilities through professionally annotated, dynamic tasks.”
BrowseComp-ZH: Benchmarking Web Browsing Ability of Large Language Models in Chinese
Zhou, P., Leon, B., Ying, X., Zhang, C., Shao, Y., Ye, Q., Chong, D., Jin, Z., Xie, C., Cao, M., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.19314 · cited 1×
“Benchmarks like BrowseComp-en/zh [27, 32] further elevate the difficulty by designing tasks with intricately coupled entities and deliberate information obfuscation, demanding sophisticated, non-linear exploration to reduce a high degree of initial uncertainty.”
Flagged first, then by citations
6 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Deep Research Agents: A Systematic Examination And Roadmap
Huang, Y., Chen, Y., Zhang, H., Li, K., Zhou, H., Fang, M., Yang, L., Li, X., Shang, L., Xu, S., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.18096 · Cited by 3
Self-citationAgentFold: Long-Horizon Web Agents with Proactive Context ManagementPreprint
Ye, R., Zhang, Z., Li, K., Yin, H., Tao, Z., Zhao, Y., Su, L., Zhang, L., Qiao, Z., Wang, X., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.24699
“We consider 3 information-seeking benchmarks including BrowseComp (Wei et al., 2025), BrowseComp-ZH (Zhou et al., 2025a), and WideSearch-en (the most detailed metric: Item-F1) (Wong et al., 2025); and 1 general benchmark: GAIA (text-only subset) (Mialon et al., 2023).”
Self-citationSeed1.8 Model Card: Towards Generalized Real-World Agency
Seed, B. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.20633 · Cited by 67
“8 on GAIA [44], BrowseComp-en [77], BrowseComp-zh [95], MM-BrowseComp [35], WideSearch [78], HLE [51], SWE-Bench Verified [47], Multi-SWE-Bench [87], AInstein-SWE-Bench, Terminal Bench 2.0 [64], U-Artifacts (internal), DeepConsult [62], DeepResearchBench [18], DiscoX [91], BFCL-v4 [50], and τ 2…”
InfluentialOpenSeeker: Democratizing Frontier Search Agents by Fully Open-Sourcing Training Data
Du, Y., Ye, R., Tang, S., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.15594 · Cited by 38
“Specifically, on xbench and WideSearch, it outperforms the best baseline combination (utilizing 15k samples) by nearly 8% (74.0) and 15% (59.4), respectively.”
InfluentialMoNaCo: More Natural and Complex Questions for Reasoning Across Dozens of Documents
Wolfson, T., Trivedi, H., Geva, M., et al. (2025) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.11133 · Cited by 27
Qwen-AgentWorld: Language World Models for General AgentsPreprint
Zuo, Y., Xiao, Z., Sheng, L., Huang, F., Tu, J., Liu, Y., Tang, T., Hu, X., Su, Y., Lan, Q., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.24597 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“WideSearch (Wong et al., 2025) is a broad information-seeking benchmark of 200 manually curated collection tasks across 15+ domains.”
Self-citationMMDeepResearch-Bench: A Benchmark for Multimodal Deep Research Agents
Huang, P., Zhong, Z.-X., Wan, Z., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.12346 · Cited by 22
“Yet static models remain limited by fixed parametric memory, motivating retrieval-augmented generation [9] and tool-using agents that browse and collect external evidence [10–12].”
DeepWideSearch: Benchmarking Depth and Width in Agentic Information Seeking
Lan, T., Zhu, B., Jia, Q., Ren, J., Li, H., Wang, L., Xu, Z., Luo, W., & Zhang, K. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.20168
“Following a design similar to that of the WideSearch benchmark [Wong et al., 2025], we incorporated timestamps into each question to ensure that the answers remain invariant over time.”
InfluentialWebLeaper: Empowering Efficiency and Efficacy in WebAgent via Enabling Info-Rich Seeking
Tao, Z.-W., Shen, H., Li, B., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.24697 · Cited by 20
“As shown in Figure 2, the distribution of valid actions for a competitive IS agent peaks around 0.04, meaning that in most cases, only a small fraction of actions are effective (Wong et al., 2025; Xue et al., 2025).”
InfluentialSelf-citationSWE Context Bench: A Benchmark for Context Learning in CodingPreprint
Zhu, J., Wu, J., Hu, M., Zhu, S., Pan, J., Shen, W., Yang, Y., Liu, F., Hao, J., Jin, Y., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.08316
“Benchmarks such as BrowseComp (Wei et al. [2025]), WideSearch (Wong et al. [2025]), GAIA (Mialon et al. [2023]), and LoCoMo (Maharana et al. [2024]) primarily assess information retrieval, tool use, or long context reasoning within isolated tasks.”
AutoResearchBench: Benchmarking AI Agents on Complex Scientific Literature DiscoveryPreprint
Xiong, L., Luo, K., Xia, Z., Zhang, W., Yao, J.-G., Liu, Z., Shao, J., Chen, J., Qian, H., Yang, X., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.25256 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“This requires deliberate reasoning about both correctness and completeness [12, 14].”
Self-citationFinch: Benchmarking Finance & Accounting across Spreadsheet-Centric Enterprise Workflows
Dong, H.-Y., Zhang, P., Gao, Y., Dong, X., Cheng, Y.-L., Lu, M., Yakefu, A., & Zheng, S. (2025) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.13168 · Cited by 12
“…for example, web search often entails many rounds of LLM calls to discover, filter, and verify evidence; cross-sheet retrieval requires iterative calls to read and locate key information across multiple sheets; and calculation usually spans many formulas distributed over different rows and columns.”
Self-citationSAM: State-Adaptive Memory for Long-Horizon Reasoning AgentPreprint
Hu, Y., Qian, H., Wang, S., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.24468
“We evaluate SAM on four long-horizon agent benchmarks: BrowseComp [34], BrowseComp-ZH [46], WideSearch [35], and HLE [24].”
AgentSwing: Adaptive Parallel Context Management Routing for Long-Horizon Web Agents
Feng, Z., Su, L., Zhang, Z., Wang, X., Zhang, X., Wang, X., Fang, R., Zhang, Q., Li, B., Cai, S., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.27490
“A central bottleneck in deep information-seeking is the tension between finite context capacity and the need for long-horizon exploration (Wei et al., 2025; Phan et al., 2025; Wong et al., 2025).”
FORT-Searcher: Synthesizing Shortcut-Resistant Search Tasks for Training Deep Search Agents
Deng, J.-L., Chen, Y.-M., Xiang, X.-Q., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.12087 · Cited by 8
“5-9B We evaluate on BrowseComp [38], BrowseComp-ZH [53], xbench-DeepSearch [5], and WideSearch [39].”
Wang, R., Zhang, C., Ma, J., et al. (2025) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.acl-long.1124 · Cited by 8
“WebAggregatorQA training set”
EcomBench: Towards Holistic Evaluation of Foundation Agents in E-commerce
Min, R., Qiao, Z.-L., Xu, Z., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.08868 · Cited by 7
“At its core, assessing the foundational capabilities of these advanced LLM agents has become essential, where a wide range of benchmarks have been proposed (Mialon et al., 2023; Wei et al., 2025; Zhou et al., 2025; Xbench Team, 2025; Yao et al., 2022; Wong et al., 2025; Yao et al., 2024).”
Self-citationAREX: Towards a Recursively Self-Improving Agent for Deep Research
Lu, S.-Q., Li, C.-F., Luo, K., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.21461 · Cited by 6
“We evaluate them on benchmarks spanning deep search, wide search, multi-constraint information seeking, and reasoning with tools, including BrowseComp (Wei et al., 2025), WideSearch (Wong et al., 2026), DeepSearchQA (Gupta et al., 2026), Humanity’s Last Exam (with Tools) (Center for AI Safety et al., 2026), GAIA (Mial…”
InfluentialSelf-citationXu, Z.-L., Xu, Z.-X., Zhang, R., Zhu, C.-Y., Yu, S., Liu, W., Zhang, Q.-L., Ding, W.-B., Yu, C., & Wang, Y. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.04634 · Cited by 6
“• Model Configuration : We utilize MiroFlow (Team, 2025) with Qwen3-8B as the backbone for all agents in the workflow.”
InfluentialSelf-citationNested Browser-Use Learning for Agentic Information Seeking
Li, B., Wu, J.-L., Yin, W., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.23647 · Cited by 6
“…agents (Team, 2025c; x.ai, 2025; AI, 2025; Team, 2025a; Gemini, 2025), powered by large language models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance on a variety of challenging wide and deep search tasks (Mialon et al., 2023; Wei et al., 2025; Zhou et al., 2025; Xbench-Team, 2025; Wong et al., 2025).”
Self-citationLoHoSearch: Benchmarking Long-Horizon Search Agents Beyond the Human Difficulty Ceiling
Zhao, J.-R., Zhang, R.-Z., Liu, L.-C., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.12837 · Cited by 5
“…benchmarks further push difficulty beyond BrowseComp: DeepSearchQA (Gupta et al., 2026) introduces 900 causal-chain tasks requiring exhaustive answer lists, and WideSearch (Wong et al., 2026) evaluates large-scale information collection where even the best system achieves only 5% success rate.”
Self-citationLiveBrowseComp: Are Search Agents Searching, or Just Verifying What They Already Know?
Fan, H., Wang, X., Chu, Z., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.28721 · Cited by 5
“DeepSearchQA [13] and WideSearch [42] target deep reasoning and breadth-oriented search, respectively.”
Self-citationInfoSeeker: A Scalable Hierarchical Parallel Agent Framework for Web Information SeekingPreprint
Lee, K. Y., Huang, Y., He, Z., Zhou, H., Luo, W., Shao, K., Fang, M., & Wang, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.02971
“(4) For Avg@4, Pass@4, Max@4, we follow the same setting from WideSearch [Wong et al., 2025].”
Self-citationTable-as-Search: Formulate Long-Horizon Agentic Information Seeking as Table Completion
Lan, T., Henry, F., Zhu, B., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.06724 · Cited by 5
“While benchmarks exist for the former two (e.g., BrowseComp (Wei et al., 2025), WideSearch (Wong et al., 2025)), the community lacks public high-quality evaluations for DeepWide InfoSeeking.”
InfluentialSafeSearch: Automated Red-Teaming of LLM-Based Search Agents
Dong, J.-S., Guo, S., Wang, H., Chen, X., Liu, Z., Zhang, T.-W., Xu, K., Huang, M.-L., & Qiu, H. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.23694 · Cited by 5
“This is non-trivial: (1) Existing evaluations (Wei et al., 2025; Wong et al., 2026) for search agents rely on human effort to craft test cases, which is labor-intensive and hard to scale.”
ActiveMem: Dynamic Latent Memory Trees for Long-Horizon AgentsPreprint
Wu, S.-L., Wang, J., Du, Z., & Gan, W. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.33244
“Regarding evaluation, we consider three information-seeking benchmarks—BrowseComp (Wei et al. 2025), BrowseComp-ZH (Zhou et al. 2025a), and WideSearch-en (Wong et al. 2025)—alongside the text-only subset of the general agent benchmark GAIA (Mialon et al. 2024).”
Self-citationA-MapReduce: Executing Wide Search via Agentic MapReduce
Chen, M., Zhang, G., Chang, H., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.01331 · Cited by 4
“We compare A-M AP R EDUCE against three classes of base-lines with diverse LLM backbones on WideSearch (Tab.1) and DeepWideSearch (Tab.2) respectively.”
InfluentialSelf-citationDr. Bench: A Multidimensional Evaluation for Deep Research Agents, from Answers to ReportsPreprint
Yao, Y., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Lu, Y., Gu, T., Li, L., Zhao, D., Wu, K., Wang, H., Nie, P., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.02190
“Existing benchmarks, including GAIA (Mialon et al., 2023), WebWalker (Wu et al., 2025), BrowseComp (Wei et al., 2025), WideSearch (Wong et al., 2025), BrowseComp-Plus (Chen et al., 2025b), and Deep Research Bench (Bosse et al., 2025), primarily evaluate LLMs using closed-form queries that require verifiable short answ…”
Self-citationAlgoWorlds: Benchmarking Tool Use for Global Optimization in Algorithmic Worlds
Xu, Z.-X., Wang, J., & Meng, F. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.29397 · Cited by 3
Self-citationPractical Online KV Cache Compaction for LLM Agents: An Empirical Study
Liu, Y.-J., Ji, J., An, L., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.00902 · Cited by 3
“P LUS (Chen et al., 2025) and W IDE S EARCH (Wong et al., 2025), using Qwen3.”
SearchArt: Training Long-Horizon Search Agent with Scalable Synthetic and Verified Task
Mei, L., Yu, X.-H., Chen, C., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.24850 · Cited by 3
“For WideSearch, we use the official inference scaffold and evaluation script [42].”
InfluentialAgentFugue: Agent Scaling for Long-Horizon Tasks through Collective Reasoning
Hu, Y., Qian, H.-J., Wang, S., Liu, J., Zhao, T., Li, X.-X., Liu, Z.-Z., & Dou, Z.-C. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.24486 · Cited by 4
“…BrowseComp [55], which requires deep multi-hop web search and cross-document evidence aggregation toward a short factual answer; WideSearch [57], which rewards breadth of evidence collection rather than depth, asking agents to enumerate and consolidate many parallel pieces of information;…”
ConvexBench: Can LLMs Recognize Convex Functions?
Liu, Y., Huang, Y., Wang, Y.-X., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.01075 · Cited by 3
Self-citationKimi K2.5: Visual Agentic Intelligence
Kimi Team, Bai, T., Bai, Y., Bao, Y., Cai, S. H., Cao, Y., Chai, Z., Charles, Y., Che, H. S., Chen, C., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.02276 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“• Agentic Capabilities : BrowseComp [68], WideSearch [69],DeepSearchQA [60], FinSearchComp (T2&T3) [26], Seal-0 [45], GDPVal [43].”
Self-citationGoldberg, L., Engelberg, G., Yavin, E., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.30345 · Cited by 2
“Coverage deficits in broad information-seeking are documented in general settings [7], and premature stopping is a named failure mode in multi-agent systems [8].”
CAFE: Self-Improving Search Agents Need Co-Evolving Feedback
Liu, B.-Y., Jin, S.-J., Wang, P.-X., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.24794 · Cited by 2
“For instance, the agent may apply a constraint to the initial candidates but silently drop it in later steps, leave a required subgoal unexplored, or repeatedly rephrase a query without acquiring new evidence (Wong et al., 2026; Polshkov et al., 2026).”
Self-citationWhen Do Multi-Agent Systems Help? An Information Bottleneck PerspectivePreprint
Yu, W. K., Zhou, L., Dong, X., Barath, S. S., Staunton, D., Yoon, B.-J., Qian, X., Caverlee, J., & Ji, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.16133
“We validate our theoretical investigations with 18 empirical studies, spanning five agentic benchmarks, including ALFWorld [26], WebShop [38], WorkBench [28], WideSearch [34], and TravelPlanner [36], and three model scales, including Qwen2.”
Web2BigTable: A Bi-Level Multi-Agent LLM System for Internet-Scale Information Search and Extraction
Huang, Y., Chen, Y.-H., He, Z.-Y., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.27221 · Cited by 2
“WideSearch [19] evaluates the reliability of LLM agents in large-scale, structured information extraction from the live web.”
InfluentialSelf-citationTable-as-Search: Agentic Information Seeking is Table Completion
Lan, T., Henry, F., Zhu, B., et al. (2026) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.743 · Cited by 2
“While benchmarks exist for the former two (e.g., BrowseComp (Wei et al., 2025), WideSearch (Wong et al., 2025)), the community lacks public high-quality evaluations for DeepWide InfoSeeking.”
InfluentialCHIME: Credit-Aware Hierarchical Memory Evolution for Long-Horizon Agentic Planning
Ye, Y., Lan, T., Jiang, F., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.02074 · Cited by 1
From Simple QA to Deep Research: A Verifiable Benchmark Constructed through Iterative Task EvolutionPreprint
Wang, C., Chen, H., Gao, H., Ding, H., Liu, Z., & Tu, Z. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.02163
“Representative deep search benchmarks typically construct hard short-answer tasks via human curation [7, 19, 28, 31, 32], question linking [33–35, 38 Deep research addresses open-ended task needs that go beyond typical deep search tasks[12, 37].”
SearchOS-V1: Towards Robust Open-Domain Information-Seeking Agent Collaboration
Zhang, Y.-Y., Gao, J., Wu, Z.-X., Fan, J., Zhang, J., Ma, S., Yao, Y., Qi, W., Jin, C.-Y., Ma, G., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.15257 · Cited by 1
“As the field moves toward broad, open-domain and long-horizon tasks (Wong et al., 2025; Zhu et al., 2026), an agent must gather large collections of facts, reconcile evidence across sources, and produce a structured answer with verifiable citations.”
WebSwarm: Recursive Multi-Agent Orchestration for Deep-and-Wide Web Search
Song, X., Zhang, L., Zhao, K.-Z., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.08662 · Cited by 1
Self-citationSGR-Bench: Benchmarking Search Agents on State-Gated Retrieval
Li, N., Shen, H., Liu, M., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.22219 · Cited by 1
“Wide-search benchmarks such as WideSearch [38] instead stress broad source coverage and answer-set completeness, requiring agents to exhaustively collect and deduplicate relevant items from large candidate sets.”
Traceable Latent Variable Discovery Based on Multi-Agent Collaboration
Du, H.-M., Hu, T., Huang, Y., et al. (2026) · The Web Conference · doi:10.1145/3774904.3792244 · Cited by 1
Aggregation Queries over Unstructured Text: Benchmark and Agentic Method
Zhu, H., Xu, Q., Li, H.-Y., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.01355 · Cited by 1
“More recent benchmarks have begun to target list-based or aggregation-style questions over large text collections (Katti et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2025; Yang et al., 2024; Wong et al., 2025).”
Risky-Bench: Evaluating Agentic Safety Risks in Real-World Life-Assist DeploymentsPreprint
Zheng, J., Luo, Y., Xu, J. (., Liu, B., Chen, Y., Cui, C., Deng, G., Lu, C., Wang, X., Zhang, A., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.03100
DR-Arena: an Automated Evaluation Framework for Deep Research Agents
Gao, Y., Zhao, R., Deng, Y., & Zhang, W. (2026) · Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.acl-long.1249
“Recent efforts have begun to evaluate deep research capabilities by constructing dedicated datasets for multi-step web-based investigation (Mi-alon et al., 2024; Wong et al., 2025; Lan et al., 2025).”
Self-citationGISA: A Benchmark for General Information-Seeking Assistant
Zhu, Y., Zhang, X., Zhang, M., Jin, J., Zhang, L., Song, X., Zhao, K., Zeng, W., Tang, R., Li, H., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.08543
“(3) Table-type: Following the protocols of previous wide search benchmarks (Wong et al., 2025), we evaluate tabular data at two granularities.”
InfluentialSelf-citationDou, Z.-J., Luo, K., Li, C.-F., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.28361
“…for long-horizon retrieval and evidence synthesis (Wei et al. 2025; Gupta et al. 2026); GAIA and xbench-2510 for agentic planning, tool use, and multi-step reasoning (Mialon et al. 2024; Chen et al. 2025a); and WideSearch-en for broad-coverage retrieval and synthesis (Wong et al. 2025).”
OpenSaC: A Python Library for Search as Code in Deep Research Agents
Liu, Q., Mao, J.-X., Zhu, F., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.25779
“We evaluate English BrowseComp fact finding [10] and WideSearch information collection [11] on paired task sets drawn from 200 tasks per benchmark.”
LifeSearch: Benchmarking Deep Research Agents for Real-World Life and Productivity
Wang, Y., Jin, S., Ning, Y., Liang, X., Luo, H., Zhang, J., He, Y., Wu, W., & Clarenceai (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.18092
“1 I NTRODUCTION Deep Research (DR) agents solve open-ended information-seeking problems by iteratively interacting with search engines and web pages, planning multi-step retrieval, and summarizing the collected (Gou et al., 2025) ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ Lists/tables DeepResearch Bench (Du et al., 2026) ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ Reports WideSearch (Won…”
InfluentialSelf-citationWeb$hell: A Unified Interface for Agentic Web Access
Kim, S., Kim, D., Lee, S., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.13416
“Web search includes WideSearch (Wong et al., 2026), which requires collecting information across many sources into tables, and SealQA (Pham et al., 2026), (Xie et al., 2026).”
TrajLong: Co-Designing Agentic and Long-Context Supervision for Mid-Training
Peng, M., Zhang, Q.-T., Chen, N., Li, Y.-H., Yan, G.-C., Gu, X.-R., Wu, H., Wang, H., Huang, L., Zhang, W.-T., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.04973
“WideSearch (Wong et al., 2025) requires collecting numerous verifiable facts and organizing them into a complete structured answer.”
DAGent: Evaluate-then-Grow Planning for Deep Research Agents
Liu, H.-W., Sun, Y.-F., & Tan, Q.-Y. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.39154
“3% range reported by Wong et al. [42] across four GPT-4.”
Absorbing State Phase Transitions in Multi-Agent Search
Zheng, W.-W., Yang, Y., Qu, H., Wang, X., & Jeong, H. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.38327
“Several works contribute orchestration strategies for multi-agent information seeking and evidence gathering [Song et al., 2026, Prabhakar et al., 2025, Chen et al., 2025, Jin et al., 2025] and benchmark such strategies [Wong et al., 2026].”
Efficiently Linking Unstructured Data for Multi-step Reasoning
Liang, J.-M., Jones, H., Gardner, J. R., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.19491
“Examplesofsuch agentic data engineering systems include “deep research” [20, 59, 63] and “wide search” agents [7, 21, 24, 25, 53, 56], systems for scientific discovery and literature synthesis [3, 17, 19, 29], LLM-based information extraction tools [1, 43], and unstructured-to-structured query…”
Atria Dawn: The Dawn of Agentic Superintelligence
Guo, H., Gui, T., Cai, K., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.15818
“It scores 81.9 on WideSearch (Wong et al., 2026), matching Qwen 3.8 Max and surpassing KIMI K3 (79.6), 1.4 points behind the best score of GPT-5.”
InfluentialSelf-citationMemoryWalker: Stop Training Agents on Contexts They Never Saw
Zinco, J., Zhu, X.-J., Huang, S., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.00865
Self-citationChoi, E., Choi, K., Chun, S., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.04505
“…when the search is sufficiently exhaustive, and present the results in a structured form, consistent with prior breadth-search benchmarks that emphasize completeness, per-item verification, de-duplication, and structured aggregation rather than the recovery of a single hidden answer [17, 22, 60].”
Ko-WideSearch: A Korean Breadth-Search Benchmark for Exhaustive Set Enumeration by Web Agents
Jeong, M. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.27595
“WideSearch (Wong et al. 2025) showed that even frontier agents fail set-valued tasks, not because the information is hidden but because of scale and exhaustiveness: they drop rows, mis-fill cells, and lose track of the set boundary.”
DailyReport: An Open-ended Benchmark for Evaluating Search Agents on Daily Search Tasks
Han, J., Liu, W., Zhu, M., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.12871
“WideSearch Wong et al. [2025] focuses on wide-context information aggregation requiring the collection of large volumes of atomic facts.”
Self-citationMind DeepResearch Technical Report
MindDR Team, & L. Inc (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.14518
“We comprehensively evaluate the systems across two distinct categories of benchmarks: • DeepSearch (DS) Benchmarks: We measure multi-step information retrieval and reasoning capabilities using BrowseComp-ZH [54], BrowseComp [38], xbench-DS [2], GAIA-DS [21], and WideSearch [39].”
Dong, Y., You, N., Hou, Y., Sun, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhang, L., Zhao, S., & Fan, H. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.00582
“Conversely, Wide Search [7] (note that “Wide Research” is not yet established) has evolved to address the necessity for horizontal information coverage.”
Self-citationDeepSynth-Eval: Objectively Evaluating Information Consolidation in Deep Survey Writing
Zhang, H.-Z., Hu, Y., Zhang, T., et al. (2026) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.03540
“To address scale, WideSearch (Wong et al., 2025) targets breadth-oriented acquisition.”
The Prompt Engineering Report Distilled: Quick Start Guide for Life Sciences
Romanov, V., & Niederer, S. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.11295
“Inconsistencies in output length, source selection, and citation patterns highlight the challenge of reproducibility in Deep Research tools (Wong et al. 2025).”
AJ-Bench: Benchmarking Agent-as-a-Judge for Environment-Aware Evaluation
Shi, W., Wang, Y., Zhao, Y., Chen, Y., Feng, F., Hao, X., Su, X., Gu, Q., Su, H., Cai, X., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.18240
Self-citationDeepResearch Bench II: Diagnosing Deep Research Agents via Rubrics from Expert Reports
Li, R., Du, M., Xu, B., Zhu, C., Wang, X., & Mao, Z. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.08536
MiroEval: Benchmarking Multimodal Deep Research Agents in Process and Outcome
Ye, F., Hu, Y., Zhu, P., Li, Y., Jin, Z., Xiao, Y., Wang, Y., Wang, L., Zhang, Z., Wang, L., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.28407
Self-citationWANDR: A Benchmark for Wide and Deep Research
Polshkov, V., Pitera, M., Yang, J., Priemko, K., Gaiduk, M., Nikolenko, A., Bykov, D., Southern, C., Yarats, D., & Ma, J. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.14747
Xie, S., Shi, Z., Shen, H., Wang, J., Zhong, S., Liu, M., Pan, C., Jia, P., Sun, B., Jing, X., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.21482
Self-citationScaling Long-Horizon LLM Agent via Context-Folding
Sun, W., Lu, M., Ling, Z., Liu, K., Yao, X., Yang, Y., & Chen, J. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.11967 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Other tasks with a breadth-first structure (eg WideSearch [33]) may be more promising for studying parallelism in LLM agents.”
Budget-Aware Tool-Use Enables Effective Agent Scaling
Liu, T., Wang, Z., Miao, J., Hsu, I.-H., Yan, J., Chen, J., Han, R., Xu, F., Chen, Y., Jiang, K., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.17006 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Web search agents use search and browse tools to solve complex, multi-hop queries (Chen et al., 2025c; Han et al., 2025a; Li et al., 2025a; Team et al., 2025a; Wong et al., 2025).”
Self-citation
- 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)
- arXiv
- 2508.07999
- OpenAlex
- W4414430079
- Semantic Scholar
- 6704707edc88c86aa82f74ad6030b8bbebbd7182
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 32
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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