LakeQuest: A Three-Domain Benchmark for Grounded Question Answering across Data Lakes

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.

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.

Scientific literature is increasingly used as a knowledge source for language models, retrieval-augmented generation systems, and research assistants, but answering research questions from papers requires more than fluent generation. A reliable system must identify the relevant papers, locate the concrete evidence that supports the answer, and produce a response that is faithful to that evidence. We present LitTraceQA, a benchmark for literature-grounded question answering over scientific papers. Given a research question and a metadata pool of papers, a system must return three connected outputs: canonical paper identifiers, supporting evidence locations, and answers in one or more requested formats, including free-form text, multiple-choice answers, and structured tables. LitTraceQA targets evidence types common in scientific reading: tables, figures, text spans, equations or algorithms, and citation contexts. The public development split contains 55 examples, including 26 hidden-source single-paper questions and 29 multi-paper questions, and provides gold papers, evidence annotations, and answers for local validation. We also analyze a larger final annotation collection with 4,978 unique-question records over 4,859 unique gold papers. By evaluating paper retrieval, evidence grounding, and answer accuracy separately, LitTraceQA provides a testbed for scientific QA systems that produce verifiable answers rather than unsupported summaries.