Sari la conținut

Română · beta. Traducerea a fost făcută automat și este încă în curs de revizuire. Citește pagina în engleză

perspectiva aiqbenchCercetare AI

analiza aiqbench

IDRBench introduces a critical evaluation framework for deep research agents by quantifying the trade-offs between autonomous performance and the cost of human clarification. The study demonstrates that while interactive feedback significantly improves report alignment across most models, it does not guarantee success in every scenario, highlighting the nuanced role of agent questioning strategies. This work advances the field by shifting benchmarking focus from static input-output tasks to dynamic, multi-step reasoning workflows where user intent correction is essential.
Surse care acoperăarXiv, LessWrong, Quantum Frontiers, Quantum Zeitgeist
Ce este aceastaLectura unui model asupra articolului și a acoperirii conexe, scrisă pentru aiqbench. Nu sunt cuvintele publicației.

IDRBench: Benchmarking the Interactive Capabilities of Deep Research Agents

arXiv2 min de cititArticolul și perspectiva sunt în engleză.

arXiv:2601.06676v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Model (LLM)-based deep research agents perform multi-step reasoning, web exploration, and long-form report generation. In these long-horizon workflows, early deviations from user intent can misdirect research and propagate through planning, search, and synthesis, making timely interaction essential. However, existing benchmarks primarily treat deep research as a static input-output task, overlooking agents' ability to elicit and use user feedback. We introduce IDRBench, a benchmark for evaluating interactive deep research with controlled opportunities for clarification. Within a common workflow and stage-wise interaction budget, IDRBench compares autonomous and interactive trajectories, measuring interaction benefit through changes in task-specific report alignment and interaction cost through turns and tokens. Comprehensive experiments on 100 tasks with seven proprietary and open-weight LLMs show that interaction improves all five alignment measures for every model, yielding an average gain of 6.39 points, while revealing distinct trade-offs among autonomous performance, alignment gain, and communication cost. At the task level, interaction improves performance in 74.4% of cases but degrades it in 19.9%, demonstrating that access to clarification alone does not guarantee better outcomes: success depends on what agents ask and how effectively they incorporate the resulting feedback.

Abstract:Large Language Model (LLM)-based deep research agents perform multi-step reasoning, web exploration, and long-form report generation. In these long-horizon workflows, early deviations from user intent can misdirect research and propagate through planning, search, and synthesis, making timely interaction essential. However, existing benchmarks primarily treat deep research as a static input-output task, overlooking agents' ability to elicit and use user feedback. We introduce IDRBench, a benchmark for evaluating interactive deep research with controlled opportunities for clarification. Within a common workflow and stage-wise interaction budget, IDRBench compares autonomous and interactive trajectories, measuring interaction benefit through changes in task-specific report alignment and interaction cost through turns and tokens. Comprehensive experiments on 100 tasks with seven proprietary and open-weight LLMs show that interaction improves all five alignment measures for every model, yielding an average gain of 6.39 points, while revealing distinct trade-offs among autonomous performance, alignment gain, and communication cost. At the task level, interaction improves performance in 74.4% of cases but degrades it in 19.9%, demonstrating that access to clarification alone does not guarantee better outcomes: success depends on what agents ask and how effectively they incorporate the resulting feedback.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)

arXiv:2601.06676 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2601.06676v3 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.06676 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.

Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 286 cuvinte

Subiecte conexe