arXiv AI By Yongjie Wang, Xinyue Zhang, Kunhong Yao, Zhiwei Zeng, Kaisong Song, Jun Lin, Zhiqi Shen

Search-Time Contamination in Deep Research Agents: Measuring Performance Inflation in Public Benchmark Evaluation

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2606. 05241v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Public benchmarks enable fair and reproducible evaluation of LLM reasoning, but they become fragile for deep research agents that actively search the web during inference.

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 AI
Jun 11

Can AI Agents Synthesize Scientific Conclusions?

arXiv:2606. 11337v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific AI agents increasingly retrieve evidence, reason across sources, and synthesize conclusions used in consequential decisions.

By Hayoung Jung, Pedro Viana Diniz, Jos\'e Reinaldo Corr\^ea Roveda, Abner Fernandes da Silva, Haeun Jung, Enoch Tsai, Aleksandra Korolova, Manoel Horta Ribeiro
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