Characterizing Web Search by Conversational LLM Agents: From Search Decisions and Strategies to Results and Responses

Are LLM-based search agents genuinely searching, or using the web to verify what they already know? We study this question on BrowseComp with three diagnostics. Our analysis reveals Intrinsic Knowledge Dependence (IKD): even with tool access, agents often rely on intrinsic knowledge -- information encoded in the model before retrieval -- rather than on external evidence. Agents answer up to 44.5% of BrowseComp questions without tools, generate more than half of their search queries from internally produced hypotheses rather than retrieved leads, and perform worse than closed-book baselines when answer-supporting evidence is removed. These results suggest that static search benchmarks can reward memory-backed verification rather than evidence-driven discovery, conflating what agents already know with what they can find. We then introduce LiveBrowseComp, a deep-search benchmark designed to evaluate agents beyond intrinsic coverage. It contains 335 human-authored questions whose answers depend on facts published within the 90 days preceding benchmark construction, drawn from six updated sources and filtered to exclude globally salient events. On LiveBrowseComp, all evaluated agents fall below 2% closed-book accuracy, search-augmented scores drop by 25-40 points relative to BrowseComp, and prior model rankings no longer reliably predict performance. LiveBrowseComp is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Forival/LiveBrowseComp.

Search APIs expose ranked snippets, URLs, and metadata on which agents decide whether to answer, search again, or fetch pages. We evaluate these interfaces as decision surfaces on a fixed sample of 100 questions from the 254-question SealQA-Hard subset, using one frozen GPT-5.4 agent, a fixed orchestration harness, and a shared page-fetch backend across Brave, Tavily, and Firecrawl. A Kimi-K2.6 oracle labels visible URL-level evidence; a separate answer audit yields 25, 25, and 26 correct answers out of 100. These counts indicate similar observed accuracy but do not establish equivalence. Under the tested configurations, Brave exposes more pre-fetch support alongside a larger snippet surface; Tavily has a larger rank-1 share among trajectory-pooled supporting observations; and Firecrawl is associated with broader exploration. First-search query-level metrics distinguish support availability from ranking, while contradiction exposure complements contradiction-to-gold ratios. A retrospective oracle union covers 44/100 questions, versus 26/100 for the best individual provider: 18 percentage points of headroom. The observed evidence and action differences motivate evaluating search APIs jointly with agent policy and retrieval budget.

LLM search agents are often evaluated on final-answer accuracy, overlooking the process. Analyzing a search strategy requires understanding how credible evidence is retrieved to address question constraints. This valuable information is buried in raw search trajectories that are long and difficult to parse. We introduce SearchAtlas, a framework that converts search trajectories into structured graphs whose edges represent how evidence is propagated across the reasoning trace, from the query that retrieves it to the final answer. Our automated parsing pipeline achieves a mean edge F1 of 86.0% against human-annotated graphs and remains consistent across repeated runs. We analyze five search agents on three benchmarks, revealing systematic differences in search scale and evidence aggregation. SearchAtlas exposes fragmented answer support, question constraints that do not reach the answer, and unverified parametric knowledge entering the response. These process failures are strongly associated with incorrect answers, even more so than an LLM judge given either the raw trajectory or the ordered query list, suggesting that the constructed graphs provide useful interpretability. Moreover, an audit of cases in which process-diagnostic scores disagree with final-answer correctness shows that they capture information not reducible to answer accuracy.