Mingqi Wu

Ming Zhang, Jiabao Zhuang, Wenqing Jing et al.

Deep Research Agents increasingly automate survey generation, yet whether they match human experts at retrieving essential papers and organizing them into expert-like taxonomies remains unclear. Existing benchmarks emphasize writing quality or citation correctness, while standard clustering metrics ignore hierarchical structure. We introduce TaxoBench, a benchmark of 72 highly-cited LLM surveys with expert-authored taxonomy trees and 3,815 papers mapped to paper categories. TaxoBench evaluates (1) retrieval via Recall/Precision/F1, and (2) organization at a leaf level (paper-to-category assignment) and a hierarchy level via novel metrics, namely Unordered Semantic Tree Edit Distance US-TED/US-NTED and Semantic Path Similarity Sem-Path. Two modes are supported: Deep Research (topic-only, end-to-end) and Bottom-Up (expert paper set provided, organization-only). To distinguish disagreement with a single expert reference from genuine model failure, we explicitly partition findings into capability-based (reference-free) and alignment-based (reference-dependent). Evaluating 7 Deep Research Agents and 12 frontier LLMs reveals a dual bottleneck: capability-side, the best agent retrieves only 20.92% of expert-cited papers, and 1,000 model taxonomies show 75.9% sibling overlap, 51.2% MECE violations, and 83.4% structural imbalance, all detectable without any reference; alignment-side, all 12 LLMs converge to Sem-Path 28--29%, well below 47--58% achieved by three independent human-annotator groups on the same paper sets. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/KongLongGeFDU/TaxoBench

Yuming Yang, Mingyoung Lai, Wanxu Zhao et al.

Long chain-of-thought (CoT) trajectories provide rich supervision signals for distilling reasoning from teacher to student LLMs. However, both prior work and our experiments show that trajectories from stronger teachers do not necessarily yield better students, highlighting the importance of data-student suitability in distillation. Existing methods assess suitability primarily through student likelihood, favoring trajectories that closely align with the model's current behavior but overlooking more informative ones. Addressing this, we propose Rank-Surprisal Ratio (RSR), a simple metric that captures both alignment and informativeness to assess the suitability of a reasoning trajectory. RSR is motivated by the observation that effective trajectories typically combine low absolute probability with relatively high-ranked tokens under the student model, balancing learning signal strength and behavioral alignment. Concretely, RSR is defined as the ratio of a trajectory's average token-wise rank to its average negative log-likelihood, and is straightforward to compute and interpret. Across five student models and reasoning trajectories from 11 diverse teachers, RSR strongly correlates with post-training performance (average Spearman 0.86), outperforming existing metrics. We further demonstrate its practical utility in both trajectory selection and teacher selection.