Benchmarking Real-Time Question Answering via Executable Code Workflows
Organizations: Li Auto Inc. · Minzu University of China
Abstract
Retrieving real-time information is a fundamental capability for search-integrated agents in real-world applications. However, existing benchmarks are predominantly static and therefore fail to capture the temporal dynamics of information and the continuously evolving nature of real-world knowledge. To address this limitation, we propose RT-QA, a dynamic evaluation framework that leverages executable code workflows to retrieve up-to-date answers at evaluation time. Specifically, we construct an agent-driven pipeline that autonomously generates code for web crawling and DOM-based answer extraction to produce real-time ground truth. To ensure robust evaluation over time, the pipeline further incorporates a self-repair mechanism to adapt to changes in web page structures. RT-QA spans 12 domains (e.g., Finance, Sports) with 320 Chinese questions categorized into three difficulty levels. Extensive evaluations of state-of-the-art models (e.g., GPT-5.2, GLM-4.7) reveal significant limitations in real-time adaptability: even the best models achieve only 46% accuracy. Our analysis highlights two primary failure modes: (1) Lazy Retrieval, where agents rely on search snippets instead of deeply scanning specific websites for information (20% of failures); and (2) Temporal Confusion, a cognitive error where agents retrieve a historical date (e.g., an event in 2024) and fail to re-anchor to the current time (2026) for subsequent reasoning. These findings suggest that future agents require not just better retrieval strategies, but robust temporal state management.
Figures & tables
| Panel A: Domain Distribution (12 Categories) | |||
| Domain | # | Domain | # |
| Finance & Economy | 42 | Public Safety | 34 |
| Weather & Env. | 40 | News & Media | 33 |
| Culture Activities | 35 | Space & Astronomy | 28 |
| Sports Events | 28 | Energy & Industry | 20 |
| Consumer Products | 20 | Transportation | 18 |
| Model | Daily Overall Trend (Timeline) | Level Performance | Total Avg | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 10 | Jan 11 | Jan 12 | Jan 13 | Jan 14 | Jan 15 | L1 | L2 | L3 | ||
| Open-Weights Models | ||||||||||
| GLM-4.7 | 43.6 | 46.0 | 46.1 | 48.4 | 43.8 | 43.1 | 46.9 | 41.9 | 46.9 | 45.2 |
| DeepSeek-V3.2 | 30.1 | 41.6 | 33.9 | 34.4 | 34.2 | 36.3 | 34.2 | 34.0 | 39.3 | 35.1 |
| Qwen3-235B | 24.5 | 29.9 | 34.2 | 25.6 | 34.5 | 35.6 | 33.0 | 26.9 | 31.9 | 30.7 |
| Kimi-K2 | 37.6 | 41.5 | 40.4 | 40.6 | 41.0 | 41.6 | 43.0 | 37.4 | 39.6 | 40.4 |
| Level | Jan 10 | Jan 15 | Jan 20 (w/ Time Anchor) |
|---|---|---|---|
| L2 | 33.0 | 40.2 | 40.4 |
| L3 | 39.0 | 44.1 | 37.3 |
AI Agent Benchmarks
AI agent benchmarks measure how reliably autonomous systems plan, use tools, interact, and complete tasks across controlled and real-world settings.
See all 1,494 papers