A Benchmark for Deep Information Synthesis
Organizations: Huawei Noah’s Ark Lab, UK · Imperial College London · University of Zurich · University of Sheffield ·
Abstract
Large language model (LLM)-based agents are increasingly used to solve complex tasks involving tool use, such as web browsing, code execution, and data analysis. However, current evaluation benchmarks do not adequately assess their ability to solve real-world tasks that require synthesizing information from multiple sources and inferring insights beyond simple fact retrieval. To address this, we introduce DEEPSYNTH, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate agents on realistic, time-consuming problems that combine information gathering, synthesis, and structured reasoning to produce insights. DEEPSYNTH contains 120 tasks collected across 7 domains and data sources covering 67 countries. DEEPSYNTH is constructed using a multi-stage data collection pipeline that requires annotators to collect official data sources, create hypotheses, perform manual analysis, and design tasks with verifiable answers. When evaluated on DEEPSYNTH, 11 state-of-the-art LLMs and deep research agents achieve a maximum F1 score of 8.97 and 17.5 on the LLM-judge metric, underscoring the difficulty of the benchmark. Our analysis reveals that current agents struggle with hallucinations and reasoning over large information spaces, highlighting DEEPSYNTH as a crucial benchmark for guiding future research.
Figures & tables
| Model | F1 Score | Precision | Recall | Exact Match | LLM Judge Score |
| LLM Baselines | |||||
| o4-mini (2025-08) | 3.05 | 2.33 | 4.39 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| GPT-4.1 (2025-08) | 3.46 | 2.86 | 4.39 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| o3 (2025-08) | 3.29 | 2.85 | 3.90 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| GPT-5.1 (2025-08) | 3.83 | 2.98 | 5.37 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Gemini-Pro-2.5 (2025-08) | 6.25 | 4.71 | 9.27 | 0.0 | 5.0 |
| Model | Performance Metrics | |||
| F1 | Precision | Recall | EM | |
| OWL ( Full ) | 5.41 | 4.62 | 6.52 | 1.67 |
| Tool Ablation | ||||
| Web Browsing Toolkit | 4.80 | 4.20 | 5.60 | 1.67 |
| Search Toolkit | 3.60 | 2.96 | 4.61 | 0.0 |
| Document Processing Toolkit | 4.90 | 4.50 | 5.4 | 1.67 |
| Error Cause | No. of instances |
| Navigation Error | 15 |
| No answer | 4 |
| Technical Issue | 4 |
| Synthesis Error | 16 |
| Region | % of Tasks | GPT-4.1 | o3-deep-research | Gemini-2.5-Pro | smolagents |
| Africa | 8.3% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| North America | 11.7% | 4.65 | 8.00 | 12.00 | 8.33 |
| South America | 5% | 0.0 | 25.00 | 0.0 | 0.00 |
| Asia | 29.2% | 3.36 | 12.70 | 6.50 | 11.88 |
| Europe | 38.3% | 3.45 | 10.83 | 4.91 | 5.28 |
| Oceanic | 10.8% | 8.96 | 14.43 | 6.67 | 24.00 |
| Dataset | Real World | Multi Regional | Information Synthesis | Multi-Part Answers |
| GAIA ( Mialon et al., 2023 ) | partial | × | partial | × |
| AssistantBench ( Yoran et al., 2024 ) | ✓ | × | × | partial |
| BrowseComp ( Wei et al., 2025 ) | × | × | × | × |
| HLE ( Phan et al., 2025 ) | partial | partial | partial | × |
| DeepSynth | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Model | Avg. Time (sec.) |
| o4-mini (2025-08) | 20.8 |
| GPT-4.1 (2025-08) | 7.52 |
| GPT-5 (2025-08) | 83.41 |
| Gemini-Pro-2.5 (2025-08) | 34.10 |
| DeepSeek-R1 (2025-08) | 5.2 |
| o3-deep-research (2025-08) | 645.39 |
| DeepSeek-R1 | GPT-4.1 | GPT-5.2 | Avg. Prop. (%) | |
| Step 1 | 11.2 | 10.0 | 4.1 | — |
| Step 2 | 12.4 | 9.8 | 2.6 | 97.0 |
| Step 3 | 3.9 | 3.3 | 0.5 | 100.0 |
| Step 4 | 1.4 | 2.4 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
| Step 5 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
| Step 6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
| Model | Cost (USD) | Output Tokens (Min / Max) |
| deepseek-R1 | $0.041 | 687.4 (avg) |
| GPT-4 | $0.432 | 188 (min) / 383 (max) |
| GPT-5 | $5.52 | 1600–15872 (reasoning), 201–425 (completion) |
| o4-mini | $1.39 | 448–5760 (reasoning), 40–392 (completion) |
| o3 deep-research | $184.61 | 448–5760 (reasoning), 40–392 (completion) |
| Gemini-Pro-2.5 | $11.78 | 12995 (avg) |
| Framework | Code Interpreter | Web Search | API Calls | Document Processing | Browser Simulation |
| o3-deep-research (2025-08) | ✓ | ✓ | × | × | × |
| Smolagent (GPT-5) | ✓ | ✓ | × | × | × |
| OWL | × | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Operation | Description | Example |
| Trend Detection | Identifying patterns, directions, or changes in data over time or across contexts. | Climate events over the last decade to detect a trend of increasing wildfires. |
| Average | Determining a representative value that summarises numerical data collected from multiple sources. | Synthesising daily temperatures from multiple weather stations to report the average regional temperature. |
| Correlation | Measuring relationships or associations between two or more variables. | Synthesising data from health studies to find correlations between exercise frequency and cholesterol levels. |
| Ranking | Ordering items or facts based on specific criteria or importance. | Compiling product reviews from different websites and ranking products by overall rating. |
| Anomaly Detection | Identifying data points or patterns that significantly deviate from the norm. | Synthesising sensor data from multiple factories to detect unusual machine behaviour. |
| Counting and Comparing | Quantifying occurrences and comparing values across sources or categories. | Counting positive vs negative mentions of a policy in news articles and comparing the proportions. |
| Model | Performance Metrics | |||
| F1 | Precision | Recall | EM | |
| o3 | 3.29 | 2.85 | 3.90 | 0.0 |
| + Intermediate Step | 12.87 | 11.38 | 14.81 | 7.50 |
| Gemini-Pro-2.5 | 6.25 | 4.71 | 9.27 | 0.0 |
| + Intermediate Step | 10.40 | 8.36 | 13.76 | 7.50 |
| Model | F1 Score | Precision | Recall | Exact Match | LLM Judge Score (GPT-4.1) |
| LLM Baselines | |||||
| o4-mini (2025-12) | 3.26 | 2.63 | 4.29 | 0.0 | 2.5 |
| GPT-4.1 (2025-12) | 1.81 | 1.57 | 2.14 | 0.0 | 7.5 |
| o3 (2025-12) | 6.33 | 5.68 | 7.14 | 1.25 | 10.0 |
| GPT-5.1 (2025-12) | 6.18 | 6.72 | 5.71 | 1.25 | 12.5 |
| Gemini-Pro-2.5 (2025-12) | 5.87 | 4.98 | 7.14 | 0.0 | 5.0 |
| Questions | Metadata |
| In the 2021 Canadian federal elections, compare the last opinion polling results by Abacus Data, EKOS Research, Mainstreet Research, Forum Research, Research Co. and Nanos Research before the elections. How accurate is each of these polls as a predictor for the actual number of votes for each party (rounded to two decimals), you should include the 6 largest parties, and ’others’. Rank each polling company by mean-squared error. Your answer should be a JSON object with the keys being the polling company names. The values should be the MSE (rounded to one decimal). The companies should be sorted in increasing value of MSE. | Type: Compare, Rank Region: North America Domain: Sociopolitics |
| As a Swiss Federal Statistics Officer, I am studying goods transport performance by railway. From 2008 to 2024, what is the average annual change rate for domestic transport, import, export, and transit? Provide the answer as a JSON object where each key is the transport type and each value is the percentage change (rounded to one decimal). | Type: Change Region: Europe Domain: Transportation |
| According to ASEAN stats, between 2016-2023, which ASEAN countries’ exports in telecommunication, computer and information services had a negative correlation with the total nominal GDP of all ASEAN countries combined? The final answer should be presented as a JSON: keys should be these ASEAN countries, and values should be the pearson correlation value(s) rounded to two decimals. | Type: Correlation Region: Southeast Asian Domain: Economics |
| I am analysing the relative importance of airports for Qatar Airways. Using crowd-sourced data from the OpenSky Network for December 2020, can you identify which are the five most important airports for Qatar Airways flights - as measured by their pagerank, using the default damping factor suggested in the paper introducing the google search engine. Your output should be a JSON object with the keys being the IATA airport codes, and the values being the Pagerank value rounded to three decimals. | Type: Rank Region: Middle East , Domain: Transportation |
| I am analyzing New Zealand migration data from 2001 to 2020 to identify anomalies in migration patterns. For each year, count the number of months in which the net migration was negative ( 0). Please return the results in JSON format, where each key is a year and the value is the number of months with negative net migration. | Type: Counting, Compare Region: New Zealand Domain: Socioeconomics |
| What are the tokenizer-level compression ratios (measured as bytes per token) for the following sentence: ” Deep Insight Benchmark is an open-source benchmark that evaluates agents’ ability to solve tasks requiring analysis of multi-regional and real-world data. ”, when tokenized using the tokenizers of Llama (meta-llama/Llama-2-7b-hf), Qwen (Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Base) and Apple (apple/FastVLM-1.5B) models? Return the results as a JSON object, where each key is the model name and the value is the compression ratio (rounded to two decimal places).{”Llama”:float,”Qwen”:float,”Apple”:float} | Type: Task Specific Quantity Region: None Domain: Computer Science |
LLM Agent Evaluation
Large language model agent evaluation measures whether tool-using systems complete tasks reliably, safely, and efficiently.
See all 1,194 papers