SGR-Bench: Benchmarking Search Agents on State-Gated Retrieval

Retrieval-augmented agents are increasingly the interface to large knowledge bases, yet most treat retrieval as a black box: they issue exploratory queries, inspect snippets, and reformulate until evidence emerges. This resembles how a newcomer searches an unfamiliar database rather than how an expert navigates it with strong priors about terminology and likely evidence, causing extra retrieval rounds, latency, and poor recall. We introduce \textit{Superintelligent Retrieval Agent} (SIRA), which casts \emph{superintelligence} in retrieval as compressing multi-round exploratory search into a single corpus-discriminative retrieval action. SIRA does not merely ask which terms are relevant; it asks which terms separate the desired evidence from corpus-level confusers. Offline, an LLM enriches each document with missing search vocabulary; at query time, it predicts evidence vocabulary the query omits; and corpus statistics serve as tool calls that filter terms that are absent, overly common, or unlikely to create retrieval margin. The final step is a single weighted BM25 call combining the query with the validated expansion. Across ten BEIR benchmarks, SIRA achieves the strongest average retrieval performance in our comparison, beating dense retrievers, learned sparse retrievers, and LLM search-agent baselines while using no relevance labels or retriever fine-tuning. On downstream QA, its retrieval-only answer coverage exceeds recent RL-trained agentic QA systems on NQ and HotpotQA. We also introduce \textbf{BrowseComp-Wikipedia}, a hard-search benchmark of 232 BrowseComp-derived queries over a 25,587,229-document Wikipedia index. Even without index-time enrichment, using only grounded Wikipedia categories, SIRA outperforms multi-round Perplexity agents at every budget, reaching 9.70% Recall@1, 15.27% Recall@10, and 36.14% Recall@100.

Evaluating first-stage retrievers in large-scale production RAG requires a benchmark that pairs a large-scale corpus with a large set of agent-reformulated search queries based on real user queries and their conversation threads, and that labels many relevant documents per query. No existing public benchmark evaluates this setting: large-scale collections typically provide only a small number of evaluation queries, whereas benchmarks with many queries generally contain only millions of documents. Moreover, most benchmarks assess human-written queries, while the first-stage retrievers in agentic RAG pipelines serve machine-written reformulations whose distribution differs from human search behavior. To overcome these evaluation gaps, we introduce Q2D-Web (Query2Doc-Web), a large-scale agentic retrieval benchmark consisting of a 190M-document web corpus and 70k agentic search queries in ten languages, reformulated from real-world user queries in production systems. Q2D-Web provides three sets of fixed relevance judgments: agent citations, production rankings, and a combined set that unions both signals and adds LLM-based judgments of unlabeled pooled documents to reduce false negatives. We benchmark 13 retrievers including lexical, dense, and late-interaction models and find that their relative ordering is largely insensitive to the choice of judgment set, while diverging substantially across topical domains, query languages, and query types. To enable fast evaluation, we also study subcorpus sampling as an approximation to full-corpus evaluations. Retaining a third of the corpus, selected by reciprocal rank fusion over pooled retriever runs, preserves the full-corpus model ranking under the combined judgments while raising absolute Recall@1000 only by 3 to 7 points. The public leaderboard is accessible under: https://huggingface.co/spaces/perplexity-ai/q2d-web-leaderboard

Recent advances in Large Language Model (LLM) agents have enabled complex agentic workflows where models autonomously retrieve information, call tools, and reason over large corpora to complete tasks on behalf of users. Despite the growing adoption of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) in agentic search systems, existing literature lacks a systematic comparison of how retrieval strategy choice interacts with agent architecture and tool-calling paradigm. Important practical dimensions, including how tool outputs are presented to the model and how performance changes when searches must cope with more irrelevant surrounding text, remain under-explored in agent loops. This paper reports an empirical study organized into two experiments. Experiment 1 compares grep and vector retrieval on a 116-question sample from LongMemEval, using a custom agent harness (Chronos) and provider-native CLI harnesses (Claude Code, Codex, and Gemini CLI), for both inline tool results and file-based tool results that the model reads separately. Experiment 2 compares grep-only and vector-only retrieval while progressively mixing in additional unrelated conversation history, so that each query is embedded in more distracting material alongside the passages that matter. Across Chronos and the provider CLIs, grep generally yields higher accuracy than vector retrieval in our comparisons in experiment 1; at the same time, overall scores still depend strongly on which harness and tool-calling style is used, even when the underlying conversation data are the same.