arXiv AI

DailyReport: An Open-ended Benchmark for Evaluating Search Agents on Daily Search Tasks

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.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 8

Q2D-Web: A Large-Scale Benchmark for Retrieval in Agentic RAG Systems

Q2D-Web is a new large‑scale benchmark for agentic Retrieval‑Augmented Generation (RAG) systems, featuring a 190 million‑document web corpus and 70 k machine‑reformulated search queries in ten languages. It supplies three sets of relevance judgments—agent citations, production rankings, and a combined set enriched with LLM‑based labels—to evaluate first‑stage retrievers. Experiments on 13 retrievers show consistent ranking across judgment sets but significant variation across domains, languages, and query types, and demonstrate that a carefully sampled sub‑corpus can approximate full‑corpus evaluation with minimal loss in Recall@1000.

arXiv AI
Jul 28

PeopleSearchBench: A Multi-Dimensional Benchmark for Evaluating AI-Powered People Search Platforms

arXiv:2603. 27476v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: AI-powered people search platforms are increasingly used in recruiting, sales prospecting, and professional networking, yet no widely accepted benchmark exists for evaluating their performance.

By Wei Wang, Tianyu Shi, Shuai Zhang, Boyang Xia, Zequn Xie, Chenyu Zeng, Qi Zhang, Lynn Ai, Yaqi Yu, Kaiming Zhang, Feiyue Tang, Lei Ding
arXiv AI
Jul 21

ClawBench: Can AI Agents Complete Everyday Online Tasks?

arXiv:2604. 08523v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI agents may be able to assist with emails and documents, but can they reliably complete everyday online workflows on real websites?

By Yuxuan Zhang, Yubo Wang, Yipeng Zhu, Penghui Du, Junwen Miao, Xuan Lu, Zhuofeng Li, Xingwei Qu, Zhengkang Guo, Yuanzhe Shen, Dingjie Song, Han Zhou, Tuney Zheng, Xian Wu, Hao Yu, Songcheng Cai, Yi Lu, Yunzhuo Hao, Minyi Lei, Liang Chen, Kai Zou, Huifeng Yin, Wendong Xu, Dongfu Jiang, Ping Nie, Jiaheng Liu, Wenhu Chen, Kelsey R. Allen
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 11

DeepResearch Bench II: Diagnosing Deep Research Agents via Rubrics from Expert Reports

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 AI
Aug 11

WebChoreArena: Evaluating Web Browsing Agents on Realistic Tedious Web Tasks

arXiv:2506. 01952v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Powered by large language models (LLMs), web browsing agents operate graphical user interfaces in a human-like manner, offering a transparent and general framework for automating web-based tasks.

By Atsuyuki Miyai, Zaiying Zhao, Kazuki Egashira, Atsuki Sato, Tatsumi Sunada, Shota Onohara, Hiromasa Yamanishi, Mashiro Toyooka, Kunato Nishina, Ryoma Maeda, Kiyoharu Aizawa, Toshihiko Yamasaki
arXiv AI
Sep 10

xDailyBench: Benchmarking LLMs on Professional Consultation for Real-Life Problems

xDailyBench is a new benchmark comprising 248 tasks across 51 real‑life scenarios, designed to evaluate large language models on everyday professional consultation. The tasks are based on actual user requests and assessed with detailed binary rubrics that capture both explicit instructions and implicit needs inferred from context. In tests of 11 leading models, the best achieved a 75.6% task‑level score, yet all models struggled more with implicit requirements, showing gaps of at least 9 percentage points.

By Yongchang Peng, Qingshui Gu, Liya Zhu, Ge Zhang, Duo Wang, Haodong Wang, Jingzhe Ding, Tianhao Yu, Letian Gao, Yongjie Zhong, Chaoxin Li, Zixin Su, Jinchao Tao, Xingyu Ma, Xin'ao Guo, Feng Tian, Shiyuan Dong, Xiaoyan He, Sen Liu, Xin Chen, Jiajun Li, Zejia Zhang, Xi Lin, Wen Zhang, Yi Zhu, Duju Zeng, Xiang Gao, Yunyang Wang, Jiahao Wang, Yujia Qin, Jiaheng Liu, Shen Yan, Xiaolong Chang, Wenhao Huang