arXiv Computation and Language

FineVerify: Scaling Test-Time Compute with Fine-Grained Self-Verification for Agentic Search

arXiv AI
Jun 12

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.

By Jingxuan Han, Wei Liu, Mingyang Zhu, Youpeng Wang, Ziwen Wang, Lin Qiu, Xuezhi Cao, Xunliang Cai, Zheren Fu, Licheng Zhang, Zhendong Mao
arXiv AI
Aug 7

Refining Over Resampling: Test-Time Self-Correction for LLM Reasoning

arXiv:2608. 05643v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Test-time scaling improves LLM reasoning by using additional inference compute, but wider sampling alone can suffer from diminishing returns: new rollouts often repeat existing answer patterns instead of adding useful reasoning diversity.

By Ahsan Bilal, Muhammad Ahmed Mohsin, Muhammad Umer, Lena Trigg, Ali Subhan, Muhammad Ali, Dean F. Hougen
arXiv AI
Aug 7

SearchAuditor: Auditing and Attributing Failures in Long-Horizon Search Agents

arXiv:2608. 05212v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Deep search agents tackle challenging questions through long-horizon web interactions, a process that is both complex and fragile: small reasoning errors may propagate through long, noisy trajectories into fluent but incorrect answers.

By Zhixiang Liang, Yifei Liu, Yidan Huang, Haozhe Zhao, Beichen Huang, Jiaqi Wang, Nan Duan, Qiong Cao
arXiv AI
Aug 24

Clarify-Then-Search: A Clarification Benchmark for Deep Search with End-to-End Nugget Restoration

Clarify-Then-Search is a benchmark that tests whether large language models can ask clarification questions to improve the usefulness of deep search results. It uses 518 real-world query pairs from Baidu, where each intent query is paired with an underspecified version. The evaluation involves a clarifier asking up to three questions, a user answerer providing only explicit information, and a rewriter generating a new query that is then searched; performance is measured by a weighted nugget-recall score.

By Deqiang Huang, Jingbo Zhou, Xinjiang Lu, Tong Xu, Hua Wu, Enhong Chen
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
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 25

Ask, Don't Judge: Binary Questions for Interpretable LLM Evaluation and Self-Improvement

Evaluating LLM outputs remains a major bottleneck in NLP: human evaluation is expensive and slow, lexical metrics correlate poorly with human judgments on open-ended generation, and holistic LLM judges often produce opaque scores that are hard to debug. We propose BINEVAL, a framework that decomposes evaluation criteria into atomic binary questions and aggregates the resulting verdicts into interpretable, multi-dimensional scores.

arXiv AI
Jun 19

Benchmarking Agentic Review Systems

arXiv:2606. 19749v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A new class of agentic review systems are emerging as a remedy to the pressure placed on peer review systems by AI-assisted research, but it is unclear how they should be evaluated.

By Dang Nguyen, Wanqing Hao, Yanai Elazar, Chenhao Tan