From Intent to Evidence: A Categorical Approach for Structural Evaluation of Deep Research Agents
Organizations: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · E Fund Management Co., Ltd. · The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Abstract
Deep Research Agents (DRAs) aim to answer complex questions by searching the web, checking evidence, and synthesizing conclusions across heterogeneous sources. We introduce a category-theoretic framework for evaluating and improving such agents. The framework treats deep research as a structured mapping from user intent to evidence-grounded conclusions, making retrieval traces, cross-source alignment, and final synthesis explicit. Guided by this view, we derive a mechanism-aware benchmark of 296 bilingual questions. The benchmark targets four structural skills central to real research: following multi-hop evidence chains, verifying claims across sources, re-ordering fragmented information, and rejecting unsupported assumptions. We evaluate 16 frontier systems with human verification and find that these structural tasks remain highly challenging: the best system reaches only 19.9% average accuracy. The results show that strong agents can sometimes reorganize evidence and detect false premises, but still struggle with long-horizon synthesis and intersection-heavy verification. Beyond evaluation, the same theory also leads to practical system improvements. We instantiate theory-guided interventions such as tracked search, which preserves retrieval traces, and category tools, which add explicit verification and synthesis steps. These interventions yield measurable gains in API-based deep research systems. Our work therefore provides both a challenging benchmark and concrete design guidance for building more reliable research agents.
Figures & tables
| Benchmark | Sequential Tracing (Chains) | Multi-Source Synthesis (Pullbacks) | Substructure Disentanglement (Re-ordering) | Ontological Probing (Yoneda) | Theory-Based |
| BrowseComp | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| WebShaper | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| DeepResearch Bench | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Finance Agent Benchmark | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| FinSearchComp | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Ours | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Category | Task ID | Score | Score | Primary Bottleneck & Rationale |
| Type I: | Task 1 | 90% | 10% | Adversarial Retrieval: Overcoming lexical collision to find off-domain fragments; logic is trivial counting once the node is reached. |
| Linear Chain | Task 2 | 80% | 20% | Schema Awareness: High reliance on querying specific vertical databases; reasoning is limited to simple temporal matching. |
| Task 3 | 85% | 15% | Long-Tail Search: Tracing obscure numerical ranks to break index shortcuts; reasoning is basic historical traceback. | |
| Type II: | Task 4 | 50% | 50% | Balanced Synthesis: Equal challenge in retrieving disjoint, long-tail reports ( ) and aligning dynamic schemas to solve algebraic deltas ( ). |
| Pullback (V-Struct) | Task 5 | 30% | 70% | Parametric Prior Override: Retrieval is standard; extreme pressure to reject pre-training biases and resolve identities strictly via rigid IDs. |
| Task 6 | 30% | 70% | Meta-Cognitive Triggering: Retrieving baseline data is trivial; the bottleneck is the unprompted realization and mathematical execution of latent regulatory constraints. |
| Model | Type I | Type II | ||||||
| Task 1 | Task 2 | Task 3 | Task 4 | Task 5 | Task 6 | Task 7 | Task 8 | |
| Reasoning Models | ||||||||
| Qwen3 w/Reasoning | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 0.0 |
| GPT-5 w/Reasoning | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 20.0 | 0.0 |
| Claude-4.5-Sonnet w/ Reasoning | 4.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Doubao w/Reasoning | 4.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Model | Type III | Type IV | |||||
| Task 9 | Task 10 | Task 11 | Task 12 | Task 13 | Task 14 | Task 15 | |
| Reasoning Models | |||||||
| Qwen3 w/Reasoning | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 95.7 | 10.0 |
| GPT-5 w/Reasoning | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 60.9 | 0.0 |
| Claude-4.5-Sonnet w/ Reasoning | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 47.8 | 0.0 |
| Doubao w/Reasoning | 15.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 34.8 | 0.0 |