IDRBench: Benchmarking the Interactive Capabilities of Deep Research Agents
Authors: Yingchaojie Feng, Qiang Huang, Xiaoya Xie, Zhaorui Yang, Jun Yu, Wei Chen, Anthony K. H. Tung
Organizations: School of Computing, National University of Singapore · School of Intelligence Science and Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen) · Zhejiang University · State Key Lab of CAD&CG, Zhejiang University
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.
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled deep research systems that synthesize comprehensive, report-style answers to open-ended queries by combining retrieval, reasoning, and generation. Yet most frameworks rely on rigid workflows with one-shot scoping and long autonomous runs, offering little room for course correction if user intent shifts mid-process. We present SteER, a framework for Steerable deEp Research that introduces interpretable, mid-process control into long-horizon research workflows. At each decision point, SteER uses a cost-benefit formulation to determine whether to pause for user input or to proceed autonomously. It combines diversity-aware planning with utility signals that reward alignment, novelty, and coverage, and maintains a live persona model that evolves throughout the session. SteER outperforms state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary baselines by up to 22.80% on alignment, leads on quality metrics such as breadth and balance, and is preferred by human readers in 85%+ of pairwise alignment judgments. We also introduce a persona-query benchmark and data-generation pipeline. To our knowledge, this is the first work to advance deep research with an interactive, interpretable control paradigm, paving the way for controllable, user-aligned agents in long-form tasks.
Deep Research Agents (DRA) aim to help users search the web, synthesize information, and deliver comprehensive investigative reports. Prior benchmarks often either under-evaluate a system's ability to produce meaningful insights and high-quality writing, or adopt coarse or LLM-defined criteria that are hard to verify and can diverge from human expert judgment. To address these issues, we introduce Deep Research Bench II, a new benchmark for evaluating DRAs. It contains 132 grounded research tasks across 22 domains; for each task, an agent must produce a research report that is evaluated by a set of 9,430 fine-grained binary rubrics in total, covering three dimensions: information recall, analysis, and presentation. All rubrics are derived from carefully selected expert-written investigative articles and are constructed through a four-stage LLM+human pipeline that combines automatic extraction with over 400 human-hours of expert review, ensuring that the criteria are verifiable and aligned with human expert judgment. We evaluate several state-of-the-art deep-research agents on Deep Research Bench II and find that even the strongest models satisfy fewer than 50% of the rubrics, revealing a substantial gap between current DRAs and human experts. We release the benchmark, evaluation scripts, and all rubrics at https://github.com/imlrz/DeepResearch-Bench-II to facilitate future research on deep-rearch agents.
As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly operate as Deep Research (DR) Agents capable of autonomous investigation and information synthesis, reliable evaluation of their task performance has become a critical bottleneck. Current benchmarks predominantly rely on static datasets, which suffer from several limitations: limited task generality, temporal misalignment, and data contamination. To address these, we introduce DR-Arena, a fully automated evaluation framework that pushes DR agents to their capability limits through dynamic investigation. DR-Arena constructs real-time Information Trees from fresh web trends to ensure the evaluation rubric is synchronized with the live world state, and employs an automated Examiner to generate structured tasks testing two orthogonal capabilities: Deep reasoning and Wide coverage. DR-Arena further adopts Adaptive Evolvement Loop, a state-machine controller that dynamically escalates task complexity based on real-time performance, demanding deeper deduction or wider aggregation until a decisive capability boundary emerges. Experiments with six advanced DR agents demonstrate that DR-Arena achieves a Spearman correlation of 0.94 with the LMSYS Search Arena leaderboard. This represents the state-of-the-art alignment with human preferences without any manual efforts, validating DR-Arena as a reliable alternative for costly human adjudication.