HyperBrowseComp: A Multilingual and Multimodal Stress Test for Web-Browsing Agents
Authors: Alham Fikri Aji, Faiz Rizki Ramadhan, Zayd M. K. Zuhri, Seung Hun Eddie Han, Ryandito Diandaru, Qinrong Cui, Jan Christian Blaise Cruz, Badrinath Chandana, Peerawat Chomphooyod, Ahmed Attia, Jonibek Mansurov, Emilio Villa-Cueva, Canh Duong Nguyen, Imran Turganov, Minghao Wu, Peerat Limkonchotiwat, Irina Nikishina
Organizations: Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence · Mila – Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute · Inception AI · Alibaba Group · AI Singapore
We introduce HyperBrowseComp, a multilingual and multimodal browsing benchmark comprising 423 manually authored and human-validated questions across 13 languages, written by native or highly proficient speakers. Questions are designed to be extremely challenging. Each question targets a concise, publicly verifiable answer whose discovery requires locating obscure evidence, following multi-step clue chains, or inspecting heterogeneous sources such as videos, scanned documents, images, or maps. Easier questions are filtered out by evaluating them with models without internet access to reduce the likelihood that they can be answered with parametric knowledge alone. We evaluate several models using provider-native search and a shared external retrieval harness under a common agent protocol. To contextualize model performance and effort, we also conduct a human evaluation on a sample of the questions. HyperBrowseComp provides a challenging testbed for persistent information seeking across languages and evidence modalities, with difficulty arising from discovering and connecting evidence on the open web.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Example question and evidence route from HyperBrowseComp . Solving it requires locating a specific moment in a video, grounding the scene to a real-world location, and retrieving information from a financial report.
Benchmark
Open web
Multimodal
# Langs
Data provenance
BrowseComp ( Wei et al., 2025 )
✔
✗
1
Human
BrowseComp-Plus ( Chen et al., 2025 )
✗
✗
1
Human
BrowseComp-ZH ( Zhou et al., 2025 )
✔
✗
1
Human
K-BrowseComp ( Lee et al., 2026 )
✔
✗
1
Mixed
XBCP ( Lu et al., 2026 )
✗
✗
12
Translation-based
MM-BrowseComp ( Li et al., 2025 )
✔
✔
1
Human
Table 1: Comparison with other browsing and search benchmarks.
Figure 2: Distributions of (a) languages, (b) modalities, and (c) primary domains in the 423 HyperBrowseComp questions. Labels report counts and percentages of all questions. Modalities may overlap; each question has one language and one primary domain.
Setting
Model
Correct.
Accuracy
Total tokens (M)
Total time (h)
Built-in
Gemini 3.7 Flash
134
31.68%
14.1
129.5
Built-in
Gemini 3.1 Pro
108
25.53%
10.2
45.3
Built-in
GPT-5.6 Sol
81
19.15%
43.6
19.9
Built-in
GPT-5.6 Terra
67
15.84%
33.1
11.1
Built-in
GPT-5.6 Luna
49
11.58%
27.5
8.5
Exa
GPT-5.6 Sol
113
26.71%
928.8
75.1
Table 2: Performance and total resource use across retained questions. Tokens are rounded to 0.1 million; time is cumulative end-to-end sample time, rounded to 0.1 hour.
Language
n
Accuracy
Gave up
Mean (min)
Median (min)
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Accuracy
Indonesian
10
6/10
1
40.23
34.68
3/10
Thai
10
3/10
2
159.70
60.33
3/10
Vietnamese
10
6/10
1
68.56
57.92
7/10
All
30
15/30
4
89.50
54.57
13/30
Table 3: Human evaluation on 30 questions. Timing summaries include all attempts, including give-ups.
Figure 3: Question difficulty across five models with built-in internet search. (a) Counts of questions answered correctly by different numbers of models; cumulative success groups overlap. (b) Selected examples of characteristics associated with shared failures. Percentages and fractions indicate questions answered incorrectly by all five models within each category. The dashed line marks the overall shared-failure rate (57.68%); the patterns are descriptive, not causal.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Parameter
Value
Evaluation epochs
1
Research-step limit
25 ReAct iterations (built-in search and Exa); not applicable to OWL
Model API retries
Up to 2 per ReAct request; 1 per OWL request
Sample-level retries
Up to 3 after ReAct execution errors; no automatic OWL rerun within a shard
Temperature
Provider default (ReAct); 0 (OWL)
Maximum output length
Provider default (ReAct); 8,192 tokens per OWL call
Appendix
Table 4: Evaluation configuration by harness.
Setting
Available tools
No tools
None
Built-in search
Provider-specific web_search
Exa
Exa-backed web_search and web_fetch
OWL
DuckDuckGo and Wikipedia search, screenshot-based visual browsing, and image, video, rendered-PDF, and audio analysis
Appendix
Table 5: Tools exposed under each retrieval setting.
Judge
Correct / N
Acc.
Δ pp
Agree.
C → I / I → C
Self-judge
723 / 3,384
21.37%
—
—
—
Gemini 3.7 Flash
740 / 3,384
21.87%
+0.50
99.32%
3 / 20
GLM-4.7
706 / 3,384
20.86%
−0.50
98.85%
28 / 11
Kimi K2 Thinking
696 / 3,384
20.57%
−0.80
98.79%
34 / 7
Appendix
Table 6: Sensitivity of aggregate accuracy to the grading model. The final column gives changes from correct to incorrect and from incorrect to correct relative to the original self-judge.
Threshold ( k )
Excluded
Retained
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Gemini 3.7 Flash
DeepSeek V3.2
GPT-OSS 120B
Kimi K2
MiniMax M2
GLM 4.7
1
121
379
67
68
24
20
19
16
11
2
54
446
42
44
19
18
16
12
7
3
25
475
20
22
15
14
15
8
6
4
15
485
12
14
12
10
10
7
5
5
7
493
5
6
6
6
6
6
3
6
2
498
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
Appendix
Table 7: Questions excluded and retained when exclusion requires correct answers from at least k of the seven models without internet access. Each model column counts the excluded questions that model answered correctly; these counts overlap across models.
Figure 7: Shared failures across all 13 languages, sorted by shared-failure rate. The dashed line marks the overall rate (244/423; 57.68%). The languages contain different question sets, so these rates do not isolate language ability.
Figure 8: Shared failures across 12 domains (sample sizes differ), ordered by shared-failure rate. The dashed line marks the overall rate (244/423; 57.68%). These associations are descriptive, not causal.
Figure 9: Shared failures across all modality-related labels. The dashed line marks the overall rate (244/423; 57.68%). Labels overlap, Arithmetic describes an operation, and no selected modality label does not imply text-only input. These associations are descriptive, not causal.
Figure 10: Top-100 terms ranked by positive mean TF-IDF difference between shared-failure and solved questions. Dots show shared-failure rates, not TF-IDF scores. Fractions count failures among questions containing each term. Dashed lines mark 244/423 (57.68%). Terms occur in at least eight questions. The associations are descriptive, not causal.
Web agent benchmarks test how reliably AI agents browse, navigate, and act on websites, including under long-horizon, ambiguous, and adversarial conditions.
AI agents with advanced reasoning and tool-use capabilities have demonstrated impressive performance in web browsing for deep search. However, existing benchmarks such as BrowseComp primarily focus on textual content, overlooking the prevalence of multimodal content. To bridge this gap, we introduce MM-BrowseComp, a novel benchmark comprising 400 challenging, hand-crafted questions designed to evaluate multimodal retrieval and reasoning capabilities. Unlike prior work, MM-BrowseComp incorporates visual prompts and necessitates the extraction of key evidence from web images and videos to complete questions, rendering text-only approaches insufficient. Additionally, we provide a verified checklist for each question, enabling fine-grained analysis of multimodal dependencies and reasoning paths. Our comprehensive evaluation of 27 state-of-the-art models reveals that even leading models like GPT-5-High with tools achieve only 24.25% accuracy, highlighting the suboptimal multimodal browsing capabilities, establishing MM-BrowseComp as a rigorous new standard for the field.
Shilong Li, Xingyuan Bu, Wenjie Wang +22
1ByteDance · 2Nanjing University · 5Zhejiang University +2
Search Agents -- large language models augmented with search tools -- have intensified the need for future-proof evaluation benchmarks. Existing benchmarks such as BrowseComp rely on static knowledge, making them vulnerable to test-set contamination and parametric memorization. Consequently, models can achieve high scores through fact recall rather than genuine retrieval, obscuring true browsing competence via reasoning shortcuts. In this paper, we introduce EvoBrowseComp, an evolving benchmark of 400 English and 400 Chinese contamination-free complex questions synthesized via live-web traversal. To collect these questions, we design a three-agent collaborative framework: (1) a QA synthesis agent that retrieves fresh knowledge from the live web to synthesize QA pairs; (2) an information filtering agent that filters retrieved knowledge in terms of credibility and popularity to block parametric shortcuts; and (3) a high-level guidance agent that formalizes questions into reasoning graphs to reduce logical redundancy and shortcuts in synthesized QA pairs. Because the framework supports fully automated synthesis, EvoBrowseComp can be regularly updated to prevent data contamination and maintain temporal freshness. Extensive experiments confirm its great difficulty, requiring broad horizontal search. It establishes a scalable paradigm for auto-updatable, high-difficulty benchmarking that keeps pace with both evolving world knowledge and advancing agent capabilities.
Yunhan Wang, Jiaan Wang, Lianzhe Huang +2
Northeastern University, China · Weixin AI, Tencent Inc, China
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.