analiza aiqbench
The paper studies how errors propagate through the multi-stage pipelines of "Deep Research" agents, which search the web and synthesize answers, and proposes a fuzzing method to find those failures. Its claims rest on reported figures, including a 3.21x failure-discovery throughput over the strongest baseline in 16 settings, plus human and LLM-assisted checks that generated inputs keep the original intent. Readers evaluating agent reliability should note that these are benchmark results on specific systems and models, not evidence of general robustness.
EMBERS: Empirically Motivated Robustness Testing of Deep Research Systems via Defect-Guided Fuzzing
arXiv:2611.03723v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Deep Research (DR) systems extend large language models into autonomous agents that decompose complex information needs, iteratively search the web, and synthesize evidence to answer challenging questions. However, their multi-stage execution may introduce robustness risks, as variations in user questions or intermediate search inputs may propagate across research stages and lead to incorrect answers. Existing evaluations focus on task-solving capabilities or robustness against external evidence disturbances, leaving intrinsic weaknesses in DR execution insufficiently explored. Thus, we conduct an empirical study of 1,932 execution trajectories from three representative DR systems and identify nine recurring defect categories across subquestion formulation, online search, and final reasoning. Guided by these findings, we propose EMBERS, an empirically motivated, defect-guided fuzzing framework for robustness testing of DR systems. Starting from correctly answered seed questions, EMBERS generates stage-targeted test inputs using defect-guided mutation, web-search-assisted fidelity assurance, and diversity-aware seed maintenance. Experiments across 16 framework--model--dataset settings show that EMBERS achieves 3.21 times the failure-discovery throughput of the strongest baseline under identical testing budgets. Human and LLM-assisted evaluations demonstrate that most generated inputs preserve the original information need and necessary contextual constraints. Moreover, model fine-tuning experiments show consistent-answer performance improvement, highlighting their value for robustness testing and model improvement.
Abstract:Deep Research (DR) systems extend large language models into autonomous agents that decompose complex information needs, iteratively search the web, and synthesize evidence to answer challenging questions. However, their multi-stage execution may introduce robustness risks, as variations in user questions or intermediate search inputs may propagate across research stages and lead to incorrect answers. Existing evaluations focus on task-solving capabilities or robustness against external evidence disturbances, leaving intrinsic weaknesses in DR execution insufficiently explored. Thus, we conduct an empirical study of 1,932 execution trajectories from three representative DR systems and identify nine recurring defect categories across subquestion formulation, online search, and final reasoning. Guided by these findings, we propose EMBERS, an empirically motivated, defect-guided fuzzing framework for robustness testing of DR systems. Starting from correctly answered seed questions, EMBERS generates stage-targeted test inputs using defect-guided mutation, web-search-assisted fidelity assurance, and diversity-aware seed maintenance. Experiments across 16 framework--model--dataset settings show that EMBERS achieves 3.21 times the failure-discovery throughput of the strongest baseline under identical testing budgets. Human and LLM-assisted evaluations demonstrate that most generated inputs preserve the original information need and necessary contextual constraints. Moreover, model fine-tuning experiments show consistent-answer performance improvement, highlighting their value for robustness testing and model improvement.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2611.03723 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2611.03723v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.03723 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 297 cuvinte