PreprintCited by 3Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorTopic ModelingAI-based Problem Solving and Planning

DeepWideSearch: Benchmarking Depth and Width in Agentic Information Seeking

Open access
Lan, Tian, Zhu, Bin, Jia, Qianghuai, Ren, Junyang, Li, Haijun, Wang, Longyue, Xu, Zhao, Luo, Weihua +1 more·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Current search agents fundamentally lack the ability to simultaneously perform \textit{deep} reasoning over multi-hop retrieval and \textit{wide}-scale information collection-a critical deficiency for real-world applications like comprehensive market analysis and business development. To bridge this gap, we introduce DeepWideSearch, the first benchmark explicitly designed to evaluate agents to integrate depth and width in information seeking. In DeepWideSearch, agents must process a large volume of data, each requiring deep reasoning over multi-hop retrieval paths. Specifically, we propose two methods to converse established datasets, resulting in a curated collection of 220 questions spanning 15 diverse domains. Extensive experiments demonstrate that even state-of-the-art agents achieve only 2.39% average success rate on DeepWideSearch, highlighting the substantial challenge of integrating depth and width search in information-seeking tasks. Furthermore, our error analysis reveals four failure modes: lack of reflection, overreliance on internal knowledge, insufficient retrieval, and context overflow-exposing key limitations in current agent architectures. We publicly release DeepWideSearch to catalyze future research on more capable and robust information-seeking agents.

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2510.20168

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • Context overflow occurs in production agent runs, characterized by long search trajectories exhausting the available context.

    “context overflow (long search trajectories exhausting the available context) [Lan et al., 2025]”

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

    The Error Analysis (p. 10) identifies context overflow in DeepWideSearch agent evaluations: multi-step reasoning and numerous search calls expand context beyond current agents’ management capabilities. It does not establish that this occurred in production runs; the Efficiency Analysis (p. 9) instead discusses real-world deployment as a future scalability challenge. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    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 Lan et al., 2025

    The Error Analysis (p. 10) reports insufficient retrieval and agents filling tables from internal knowledge instead of web queries, producing outdated or inaccurate information. It does not identify a failure mode called “volume collapse” or establish incomplete query decomposition, and its evidence comes from benchmark tasks rather than production agent runs. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Depth and width constitute two fundamental capabilities of DR agents: reasoning and information gathering.

    “Collectively, depth and width constitute two fundamental capabilities of DR agents: reasoning and information gathering.”

    From DR-Arena: an Automated Evaluation Framework for Deep Research Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Lan et al. (2025)

  • DeepWideSearch explicitly combines depth and width, converting 220 tasks from existing deep-and wide-search datasets and grading against human-verified ground-truth tables.

    “Most similar to WANDR, DeepWideSearch [Lan et al., 2025] explicitly combines depth and width, converting 220 tasks from existing deep-and wide-search datasets and grading against human-verified ground-truth tables.”

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

Self-check

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

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

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

This paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lan, T., Zhu, B., Jia, Q., Ren, J., Li, H., Wang, L., Xu, Z., Luo, W., & Zhang, K.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4416245127
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Keywords
multi-hop retrieval, deep reasoning, large language models, market analysis, business development, failure modes, error analysis

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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