Deep Research Bench II is a new benchmark designed to evaluate Deep Research Agents (DRAs) by requiring them to produce research reports for 132 grounded tasks across 22 domains. Each report is assessed using 9,430 fine‑grained binary rubrics that cover information recall, analysis, and presentation, all derived from expert‑written investigative articles through a rigorous LLM‑plus‑human pipeline. Evaluation of current state‑of‑the‑art DRAs shows that even the best models satisfy fewer than 50% of these rubrics, highlighting a significant gap between automated agents and human experts.
By Ruizhe Li, Mingxuan Du, Benfeng Xu, Chiwei Zhu, Xiaorui Wang, Zhendong Mao
arXiv:2607. 28229v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The web is increasingly accessed by AI agents rather than humans.
By Luigi Sigillo, Matteo Silvestri, Francesco Tabaro, Rajat Bhatnagar, Syed Irtaza Mubashar, Matt Jeffryes, Daljit Nijjer, Vittorio Perera, Ola Spjuth, Julio Saez-Rodriguez, Melissa Harrison, Fabio Petroni
arXiv:2606. 07462v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As foundation models advance and agent scaffolding becomes increasingly sophisticated, agents have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in complex, long-horizon coding tasks and even autonomous experiment execution.
By Jiayu Wang, Weijiang Lv, Bowen Fu, Jing Fu, Jiayi Song, Lingyu Zhang, Lanxuan Xue, Luodi Chen, Zepeng Xin, Kaiyu Li, Xiangyong Cao
arXiv:2606. 12871v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Search Agents (SAs) typically leverage large language models (LLMs) to support complex information-seeking tasks by autonomously exploring web sources and synthesizing information into comprehensive responses.
By Jingxuan Han, Wei Liu, Mingyang Zhu, Youpeng Wang, Ziwen Wang, Lin Qiu, Xuezhi Cao, Xunliang Cai, Zheren Fu, Licheng Zhang, Zhendong Mao
arXiv:2607. 25891v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating AI agents in interactive environments is hindered by fragmented tasks, scaffolds, verifiers, and scoring rules.
By Stefan Krsteski, Charlotte Meyer, Guillaume Allegre, Tony O'Halloran, Alexandre Sallinen
The paper introduces OneMillion-Bench (OMB), a benchmark comprising 400 expert-curated tasks across Law, Finance, Industry, Healthcare, and Natural Science. OMB evaluates language agents on complex, real-world scenarios that require authoritative source retrieval, conflict resolution, domain-specific rule application, and constraint decision-making. The benchmark uses a rubric-based scoring system assessing factual accuracy, logical coherence, practical feasibility, and professional compliance to differentiate agent performance on expert-level problems.
By Yang Liu, Jiaqi Li, Jun Bai, Qianyu Yang, Xiaobo Hu, Tao Peng, Zaiyuan Wang, Ran Tian, Jiayun Dong, Chun Zhang, Zixia Jia, Kaiyuan Chen, Yixin Ren, Yang Liu, Yanglihong Xiao, Lingyue Yin, Tiliang Duan, Ge Zhang, Gang Yao, Hao Chen, Yuan Gong, Jianpeng Jiao, Zilong Zheng
arXiv:2608.21601v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Benchmarks for scientific artificial intelligence are mostly written to be scored: multiple-choice questions, curated agent tasks with reference soluti...
By Aubrey Brueckner, Darshil Patel, Yuhuan He, Timothy Kassis
arXiv:2409. 11363v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI agents have the potential to aid users on a variety of consequential tasks, including conducting scientific research.
By Zachary S. Siegel, Sayash Kapoor, Nitya Nadgir, Benedikt Stroebl, Arvind Narayanan
arXiv:2606. 08671v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent skills extend language-model agents with task-specific procedures, scripts, and references, but the tasks and environments they target continually change.
By Zhiwei Li, Yong Hu
arXiv:2610.15208v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Deep research requires connecting multiple steps of search, reasoning, and computation, with intermediate findings guiding what to investigate next....
By M. Yigit Turali, Shreyas Rajesh, M. Efe Lorasdagi, Chenda Duan, Kartik Sharma, Vwani Roychowdhury
arXiv:2509. 02594v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on their ability to generate high-quality, accurate, situationally aware answers to clinical questions requires going beyond conventional benchmarks to assess how these systems behave in complex, high-stakes clinical scenarios.
By Sandhanakrishnan Ravichandran, Shivesh Kumar, Rogerio Corga Da Silva, Miguel Romano, Reinhard Berkels, Michiel van der Heijden, Olivier Fail, Valentine Emmanuel Gnanapragasam
arXiv:2605. 06177v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Reproducing and comparing deep research agents today is hard: the same backbone evaluated on the same benchmark can report different accuracies across papers because the harness and tool registry differ, and integrating a new model into a comparable evaluation surface costs weeks of model-specific engineering.
By Jinge Wu, Hongjian Zhou, Mingde Zeng, Jiayuan Zhu, Junde Wu, Jiazhen Pan, Ayush Noori, Sean Wu, Honghan Wu, Fenglin Liu, David A. Clifton