How Far Are We from Genuinely Useful Deep Research Agents?
This addresses the gap in practical utility for users needing automated research reports, but it is incremental as it focuses on benchmarking and analysis rather than a new agent method.
The paper tackles the problem that Deep Research Agents (DRAs) are not genuinely useful for generating comprehensive reports due to inadequate benchmarks and unclear failure modes, by introducing FINDER, a benchmark with 100 tasks and 419 checklist items, and DEFT, a failure taxonomy with 14 modes, revealing that current DRAs struggle with evidence integration and verification.
Deep Research Agents (DRAs) aim to automatically produce analyst-level reports through iterative information retrieval and synthesis. However, most existing DRAs were validated on question-answering benchmarks, while research on generating comprehensive reports remains overlooked. Worse, current benchmarks for report synthesis suffer from task complexity and subjective metrics -- this fails to reflect user demands and limits the practical utility of generated reports. To address these gaps, we present Fine-grained DEepResearch bench (FINDER), an enhanced benchmark consisting of 100 human-curated research tasks with 419 structured checklist items that standardize report structure, analytical depth, and factual grounding. Based on approximately 1,000 reports produced by mainstream DRAs, we further propose Deep rEsearch Failure Taxonomy (DEFT), the first failure taxonomy for deep research agents. DEFT contains 14 fine-grained failure modes across reasoning, retrieval, and generation, and is built upon grounded theory with human-LLM co-annotating and inter-annotator reliability validation. Our experimental findings reveal that current DRAs struggle not with task comprehension but with evidence integration, verification, and reasoning-resilient planning.