Qi Liu

Qi Liu, Jiaxin Mao, Fengbin Zhu et al.

Deep search agents answer difficult information-seeking questions by iteratively issuing search queries to gather supporting evidence, but it remains unclear whether and how greater search effort leads to better answers. We study these questions through a trajectory-level diagnosis of long-horizon search agents. Using human-annotated document-level relevance judgments, we evaluate the evidence retrieved at each search step and separate two stages of agent behavior: what evidence an agent retrieves and how effectively it uses that evidence. This distinction further allows us to decompose failures into retrieval gaps, where the necessary evidence is never found, and utilization gaps, where relevant evidence is retrieved but not used correctly. With the retrieval model and evaluation harness held fixed, we compare six agents on BrowseComp-Plus and further validate our findings on BrowseComp with an open-web search API. Across settings, we find that search effort and answer quality are only weakly aligned. Answer accuracy is better correlated with the quality of retrieved evidence, especially cumulative retrieval recall, than with the number of searches or the amount of context consumed. Useful evidence often appears early in the trajectory, yet agents tend to continue searching, producing a long tail of low-yield retrieval steps. At the query level, exploratory reformulations remain useful, but the best-performing agents issue far fewer redundant queries. Overall, by systematically characterizing the search behavior and failure modes of long-horizon search agents, this work points to practical directions for building better deep research systems, including stronger query formulation, more effective evidence selection and context management, and stopping criteria based on whether sufficient supporting evidence has been retrieved.

Qi Liu, Yiqun Chen, Zidan Chen et al.

Search agents now answer questions that take dozens of searches to settle, yet how such an agent reads a page has drawn far less attention than how it finds one. Nearly all of them use one of two document interfaces, and both tie a page to the moment it is opened. \emph{Visit-and-read} injects a reading of the page into the message history at fetch time, fixing that reading before the agent knows which fact it will need. Stateful \emph{browsing} instead extracts on demand from the page in hand, but holds one page at a time and releases it as soon as the agent opens another. Either way, a page that turns out to matter many turns later has to be fetched and rendered into context all over again. We propose \textbf{Fetch-then-Explore}, which separates page selection from evidence extraction and keeps what it selects: pages are recorded in a per-question workspace on the filesystem rather than the context window or a transient session, and evidence is pulled from them on demand later. Selection becomes almost free, extraction can wait until the agent knows what to look for and be repeated as its hypothesis sharpens, and pages are not released when the agent moves on, so evidence accumulates across the trajectory. In a unified ReAct harness with fixed search, we compare Fetch-then-Explore against snippet-only, visit-and-read, and browsing baselines on two open-web benchmarks, BrowseComp and WideSearch, across three agent backbones. It leads BrowseComp accuracy at every backbone and generally matches or exceeds the baselines on WideSearch, and a behavioral analysis traces the gains to the workspace's defining move: returning to a page after leaving it, which it does far more than any transient interface, so evidence missed on a first pass can still be recovered later.