arXiv AI By Jialiang Liu, Shusheng Li, Wenjun Tan

LongSearchEval: Evaluating Long-Horizon Web Search Capabilities of Large Language Models via a Trajectory-Aware Agent Framework with Failure-Node Localization

Read the original on arXiv AI →

LongSearchEval introduces a trajectory‑aware evaluation framework for assessing large language model agents on long‑horizon web search tasks. The framework verifies answer groups against agent‑cited webpages without relying on human‑authored gold answers and audits normalized rounds to flag failure nodes linked to incorrect answers. Using this method, 16 models were evaluated on 100 tasks, producing 1,600 retained runs and 6,545 automatically flagged failure nodes, with high human validation agreement.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 24

Improving LLM-based Autonomous Web Agents with Filtering

The paper investigates how to improve large language model (LLM) based autonomous web agents by filtering irrelevant webpage content. The authors reproduce baseline models on the WebArena benchmark and identify failure modes caused by raw HTML input. They propose DeBERTa‑ and T5‑based retrieval models that rank HTML elements by relevance, fine‑tuned on Mind2Web data, and demonstrate that the DeBERTa model raises the LLaMA‑2‑70B agent’s success rate from 1.97% to 2.96%. Additionally, a zero‑shot ColBERT retriever achieves recall of 0.52 on Mind2Web and 0.47 on WebArena.

By Zhitong Guo, Jing Yu Koh, Ruiyu Li
arXiv AI
Jun 30

When Web Agents Finish but Still Fail: Reproducible Triggers and Trace Diagnostics for Parallel Web Exploration

arXiv:2606. 20724v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Long-horizon web agents often fail in ways hidden by final-answer evaluation: they may visit useful pages, produce a well-formed answer, and terminate confidently while still missing fields, over-including unsupported items, or relying on stale evidence.

By Aagam Sogani, Botao Rui, Swetha Vaidyanathan, Rishi Agarwal, Minghao Yan, Shivaram Venkataraman
arXiv AI
Oct 19

AuditKIT: A Unified Evaluation Spine for Benchmarking, Judging, and Comparing Large Language Models and Agentic Systems

AuditKIT is a source‑available evaluation library that unifies benchmark accuracy, judge‑based assessment, runtime performance, tool‑use behavior, and retrieval quality into a single result representation. It offers direction‑aware metric contracts, configuration fingerprints, and extensible metrics and backends, while providing turn‑aware tool‑call matching and distinguishing verified task outcomes from trajectory‑level diagnostics. Seven case studies demonstrate how answer extraction, runtime behavior, and metric selection can alter evaluation outcomes across model comparison, serving runtimes, retrieval, tool calling, and interoperability.

By Shreeyans Arora, Utsav Avaiya, Zera Lyngkhoi, Hem Gosalia, Ram Mohan Rao Kadiyala, Vinay Kumar Sankarapu, Pratinav Seth
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 Computation and Language
Sep 11

SearchAtlas: Analyzing Agentic Search Strategies via Evidential Query Graphs

SearchAtlas is a framework that transforms raw search trajectories of large language model (LLM) agents into structured evidential query graphs, where edges capture how evidence is propagated from queries to the final answer. The automated parsing pipeline achieves a mean edge F1 of 86.0% against human-annotated graphs and remains consistent across repeated runs. Using SearchAtlas, the authors analyze five search agents on three benchmarks, uncovering systematic differences in search scale and evidence aggregation, and revealing process failures such as fragmented answer support, unmet question constraints, and unverified parametric knowledge that correlate strongly with incorrect answers.

By Jiacheng Sang, Mengyuan Li, Sanxing Chen, Yukun Huang, Yu Feng, Bhuwan Dhingra