Exploratory question answering (EQA) over data lakes requires an LLM agent to discover relevant sources, analyze retrieved data, and adapt its actions based on intermediate results. End-to-end accuracy alone cannot distinguish failures in search, planning, data analysis, or the agent's Action Policy: its decisions about what to do next and when to submit an answer. We present SANA (Search Agent Navigation Ablation framework), a diagnostic ablation framework that transforms EQA tasks into runtime profiles containing gold source sequence, sanitized subquestions, and execution records. SANA uses these profiles to construct idealized search, planning, and data-analysis tools, allowing each component to be ablated; the residual gap is diagnostic evidence for policy failures. To illustrate SANA as a reusable evaluation framework, we adapted two recent EQA benchmarks, LakeQA and KramaBench, and evaluated lightweight and mid-sized agents under fixed prompts, budgets, data lakes, and runtimes. Across both benchmarks, data analysis is a consistent bottleneck while planning is less so. Search is a major limitation in LakeQA's large data-lake setting, but less so for the smaller-scale KramaBench. SANA thus deconstructs end-to-end task accuracies into a diagnosis of where data-lake agents fail, and allows for systematic comparisons of progress in search, planning, data analysis, and agent design.
Recent large language models (LLMs) have shown rapid progress in reading-based question answering (QA), where evidence is explicitly provided or can be trivially retrieved. In contrast, real-world questions are often not paired with accurate evidence documents. The useful evidence resides in massive data lakes, making search a prerequisite for answering. However, there is a lack of comprehensive benchmarks that require both searching and reasoning over large data lakes. To this end, we introduce LakeQA, a comprehensive benchmark for search-centric question answering over data lakes that jointly emphasizes searching and reasoning capabilities. LakeQA is built on a heterogeneous collection of approximately 9.5 TB of text resources from Wikipedia and open-source government data, spanning structured and unstructured data. To ensure task quality, each sample is annotated by at least one Ph.D.-level expert. Each task requires long-horizon multi-hop reasoning with implicit intermediate steps: agents need to discover the correct documents and then compose evidence across sources to produce the answer. Experimental results on seven frontier LLMs demonstrate that LakeQA is challenging. For instance, GPT-5.2 achieves only an exact-match score of 18.37% on LakeQA. Overall, LakeQA provides a realistic testbed for developing LLM agents that can both find and analyze data in modern data lakes.
While modern question answering (QA) systems excel on clean, schema-aligned corpora, real-world knowledge is rarely so neatly packaged. Answering questions over enterprise and scientific data lakes requires systems to navigate heterogeneous, weakly structured collections of tables, passages, and linked metadata. Current benchmarks abstract away this noisy discovery process, failing to evaluate end-to-end performance. To bridge this gap, we introduce LakeQuest, a human-validated benchmark of 9,846 QA pairs designed to evaluate the end-to-end retrieve-and-synthesize pipeline over realistic data lakes. LakeQuest spans three diverse domains (AI/ML metadata, retail banking, and multimodal biomedical drug information) and pairs every question with exact, modality-aware evidence pointers. By isolating source discovery from cross-modal synthesis, LakeQuest exposes critical failure modes in modern QA systems. Our baseline evaluations, including standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and agentic tool-use methods, reveal that high-quality retrieval does not guarantee correct reasoning. Systems consistently struggle with relation chaining in metadata graphs, policy grounding in bank ledgers, and joint tabular QA in biomedical contexts, highlighting the need for robust discovery and faithful cross-file composition mechanisms in future agentic QA systems.
Deep research over data lakes requires an LLM agent to investigate evidence across thousands of heterogeneous tables and passages to synthesize a report. Existing methods perform iterative retrieval and generation, letting accumulated context determine what to investigate next, which can overexploit locally promising evidence and fail to cover distinct semantic regions under a fixed budget. To address this, we cast deep research over data lakes as a budgeted search problem and present Baikal - a framework that clusters heterogeneous evidence into semantic regions, then searches over them adaptively to balance exploration and exploitation. Within each selected region, Baikal generates and investigates region-grounded subquestions, using finding quality as rewards to update region-level value estimates and guide search under policies ranging from random and LLM-guided selection to Bayesian ε-greedy and UCB. We evaluate Baikal on 15 queries each over HybridQA and TAT-QA data lakes containing 10,993 and 2,757 tables, respectively, together with 227K Wikipedia passages and 13K financial report passages. We assess research quality with a new rubric covering groundedness, relevance, diversity, and utility, and use GPT-5-mini to score Baikal and strong baselines, including DeepSearcher and an OpenCode research agent with retrieval and clustering variants. Across both data lakes, Baikal performs strongly under several region-selection policies; its best configuration improves report scores over the strongest baselines by 28% on HybridQA and 36% on TAT-QA. Our analyses attribute these gains to organizing and exploring semantic evidence regions, which improves groundedness and diversity and yields more useful findings under the same subquestion budget. These results demonstrate the value of structured semantic exploration for systematic research and discovery over heterogeneous data lakes.