Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Products

aiqbench analysis

ScholarQuest introduces a rigorous, taxonomy-guided benchmark for evaluating LLM-based search agents in academic literature, addressing critical gaps in intent coverage and multi-turn reproducibility. While agentic methods demonstrate superior performance over single-shot retrieval, the study reveals inherent limitations in current systems, with even top models achieving modest recall metrics that highlight the complexity of scalable answer construction in open environments.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

ScholarQuest: A Taxonomy-Guided Benchmark for Agentic Academic Paper Search in Open Literature Environments

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2606.20235v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Academic paper search is a core step in scientific research, and LLM-based search agents are emerging as a promising paradigm for iterative, intent-driven literature exploration. However, existing benchmarks offer limited coverage of research intents and insufficient support for scalable answer construction and reproducible multi-turn evaluation. We propose \textbf{ScholarQuest}, a taxonomy-guided benchmark constructed from over 1,000 computer science topics and organized around four research intents. To construct answer sets at scale, we combine multi-source retrieval, citation expansion, and multi-stage relevance adjudication. We further build \textit{\textbf{ScholarBase}}, a million-scale literature environment with unified retrieval and citation-expansion interfaces, together with a shared multi-turn search harness. We benchmark complete literature search systems and compare language models within this harness, evaluating retrieval coverage, search efficiency, and robustness across research intents. Results show that agentic methods outperform single-shot retrieval baselines, yet the best-performing search system achieves only 0.312 Recall@100 and 0.352 Recall@All. Comparisons under the shared harness reveal intent-dependent model strengths, with higher Planner token consumption not consistently yielding higher recall. We release the benchmark, retrieval backend, and evaluation harness for reproducible research

Abstract:Academic paper search is a core step in scientific research, and LLM-based search agents are emerging as a promising paradigm for iterative, intent-driven literature exploration. However, existing benchmarks offer limited coverage of research intents and insufficient support for scalable answer construction and reproducible multi-turn evaluation. We propose \textbf{ScholarQuest}, a taxonomy-guided benchmark constructed from over 1,000 computer science topics and organized around four research intents. To construct answer sets at scale, we combine multi-source retrieval, citation expansion, and multi-stage relevance adjudication. We further build \textit{\textbf{ScholarBase}}, a million-scale literature environment with unified retrieval and citation-expansion interfaces, together with a shared multi-turn search harness. We benchmark complete literature search systems and compare language models within this harness, evaluating retrieval coverage, search efficiency, and robustness across research intents. Results show that agentic methods outperform single-shot retrieval baselines, yet the best-performing search system achieves only 0.312 Recall@100 and 0.352 Recall@All. Comparisons under the shared harness reveal intent-dependent model strengths, with higher Planner token consumption not consistently yielding higher recall. We release the benchmark, retrieval backend, and evaluation harness for reproducible research

Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2606.20235 [cs.IR]

(or arXiv:2606.20235v2 [cs.IR] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.20235 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 271 words

Related coverage