DeepSearchQA
Questions that need multi-step search and synthesis. Final answers graded against references.
Official grading needs the gemini-2.5-flash autorater and prompt. Other judges shift results. Only Kaggle starter code, no GitHub repo.
In the authors’ words
We introduce DeepSearchQA, a 900-prompt benchmark for evaluating agents on difficult multi-step information-seeking tasks across 17 different fields. Unlike traditional benchmarks that target single answer retrieval or broad-spectrum factuality, DeepSearchQA features a dataset of challenging, handcrafted tasks designed to evaluate an agent's ability to execute complex search plans to generate exhaustive answer lists. This shift in design explicitly tests three critical, yet under-evaluated capabilities: 1) systematic collation of fragmented information from disparate sources, 2) de-duplication and entity resolution to ensure precision, and 3) the ability to reason about stopping criteria within an open-ended search space. Each task is structured as a causal chain, where discovering information for one step is dependent on the successful completion of the previous one, stressing long-horizon planning and context retention. All tasks are grounded in the open web with objectively verifiable answer sets. Our comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art agent architectures reveals significant performance limitations: even the most advanced models struggle to balance high recall with precision. We observe distinct failure modes ranging from premature stopping (under-retrieval) to hedging behaviors, where agents cast an overly wide net of low-confidence answers to artificially boost recall. These findings highlight critical headroom in current agent designs and position DeepSearchQA as an essential diagnostic tool for driving future research toward more robust, deep-research capabilities.
- Level
- Expert Specialists with years of training, often over hours of work
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.
2 models share the top score of 95%
Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.
- 95.0 Kimi K3
- 95.0 Claude Opus 5
- 93.1 Claude Opus 4.8
- 92.8
Step 3.7 Flash
- 92.5 Kimi K2.6
- 91.3 Claude Opus 4.6
- 91.0
Tencent Hy3
- 90.3
Muse Spark 1.3
- 89.2 Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 89.1 Claude Opus 4.7
- 86.7 MiMo-V2-Pro
- 84.9
Muse Spark 1.1
- 81.6 Grok 4.6
- 80.1 Beam 1.0
- 77.4
Seed2.0 Pro
- 77.3
ERNIE 5.1
- 77.1 Kimi K2.5
- 74.8
Muse Spark
- 74.6
Muse Glimmer
- 71.3 Mercury 3
- 38.4 Grok 4.5
- 34.0 Mercury 2.5
- 1 Kimi K3 95%
- 2 Claude Opus 5 95%
- 3 Claude Opus 4.8 93.1%
- 4
Step 3.7 Flash 92.8%
- 5 Kimi K2.6 92.5%
- 6 Claude Opus 4.6 91.3%
- 7
Tencent Hy3 91%
- 8
Muse Spark 1.3 90.3%
- 9 Claude Sonnet 4.6 89.2%
- 10 Claude Opus 4.7 89.1%
- 11 MiMo-V2-Pro 86.7%
- 12
Muse Spark 1.1 84.9%
- 13 Grok 4.6 81.6%
- 14 Beam 1.0 80.1%
- 15
Seed2.0 Pro 77.4%
- 16
ERNIE 5.1 77.3%
- 17 Kimi K2.5 77.1%
- 18
Muse Spark 74.8%
- 19
Muse Glimmer 74.6%
- 20 Mercury 3 71.3%
- 21 Grok 4.5 38.4%
- 22 Mercury 2.5 34%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kimi K3 | 95% | Jul 2026 | Model card | |
| 2 | Claude Opus 5 | 95% | Jul 2026 | Model card | |
| 3 | Claude Opus 4.8 | 93.1% | May 2026 | Model card | |
| 4 | | 92.8% | May 2026 | Model card | |
| 5 | Kimi K2.6 | 92.5% | Apr 2026 | Model card | |
| 6 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 91.3% | Feb 2026 | Model card | |
| 7 | | 91% | Jul 2026 | Model card | |
| 8 | | 90.3% | Sep 2026 | Model card | |
| 9 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 89.2% | Feb 2026 | Model card | |
| 10 | Claude Opus 4.7 | 89.1% | Apr 2026 | Model card | |
| 11 | MiMo-V2-Pro | 86.7% | Mar 2026 | Model card | |
| 12 | | 84.9% | Jul 2026 | Model card | |
| 13 | Grok 4.6 | 81.6% | Aug 2026 | Model card | |
| 14 | Beam 1.0 | 80.1% | Oct 2026 | Model card | |
| 15 | | 77.4% | Feb 2026 | Model card | |
| 16 | | 77.3% | May 2026 | Model card | |
| 17 | Kimi K2.5 | 77.1% | Jan 2026 | Model card | |
| 18 | | 74.8% | Apr 2026 | Model card | |
| 19 | | 74.6% | Aug 2026 | Model card | |
| 20 | Mercury 3 | 71.3% | Oct 2026 | Model card | |
| 21 | Grok 4.5 | 38.4% | Jul 2026 | Model card | |
| 22 | Mercury 2.5 | 34% | Sep 2026 | Model card |
The benchmark's own leaderboard has 12 entries, 10 of them models we track. We plot every source in the charts below.
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release. We draw one row each for the benchmark’s own leaderboard and what labs claim in their cards.
The best score passed 85% in Feb 2026
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
5 labs put it in a launch post in the last six months
Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19 Oct 2026 | Mercury 3 | 71.3 | DeepSearchQA |
| 5 Oct 2026 | Beam 1.0 | 80.1 | DeepSearchQA w/context management |
| 8 Sep 2026 | Mercury 2.5 | 34 | DSQA (@10 tool calls) |
| 2 Sep 2026 | 90.3 | DeepSearchQA (Agentic browsing) | |
| 10 Aug 2026 | 74.6 | DeepSearch QA | |
| 16 Jul 2026 | Kimi K3 | 95 | DeepSearchQA (F1) |
| 2 Jul 2026 | 91 | DeepSearchQA | |
| 29 May 2026 | 92.8 | deepsearchQA (F1), acc 81.7 | |
| 9 May 2026 | 77.3 | DeepSearchQA (F1) | |
| 20 Apr 2026 | Kimi K2.6 | 92.5 | DeepSearchQA (f1-score) |
| 8 Apr 2026 | 74.8 | DeepSearchQA (Agentic Search) | |
| 18 Mar 2026 | MiMo-V2-Pro | 86.7 | DeepSearch QA-F1 |
| 14 Feb 2026 | 77.4 | DeepSearchQA | |
| 27 Jan 2026 | Kimi K2.5 | 77.1 | DeepSearchQA |
12 system cards report it, from 5 labs
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19 Oct 2026 | | 74.6 | DeepSearchQA, high, 75.3 xhigh (Tables 2 and 5) | Capabilities |
| 12 Aug 2026 | Grok 4.6 model card | 81.6 | DeepSearchQA, internal implementation, accuracy, high (6.2) | Capabilities |
| 27 Jul 2026 | Kimi K3 technical report | 95 | DeepSearchQA (F1) (Table 2) | Capabilities |
| 24 Jul 2026 | Claude Opus 5 system card | 95 | DeepSearchQA mean F1 at max effort, 980k-token budget, printed on chart (8.10.3, Figure 8.10.3.A) | Capabilities |
| 14 Jul 2026 | Grok 4.5 model card | 38.4 | DeepSearchQA, internal implementation, accuracy, high (6.2) | Capabilities |
| 9 Jul 2026 | | 84.9 | DeepSearchQA (Figure 44) | Capabilities |
| 28 May 2026 | Claude Opus 4.8 system card | 93.1 | DeepSearchQA F1, max effort, 1M-token budget, no compaction (fully correct 84.8%) (Table 8.10.3.B) | Capabilities |
| 16 Apr 2026 | Claude Opus 4.7 system card | 89.1 | DeepSearchQA F1, adaptive thinking at max effort, compaction up to 10M tokens. Fully correct 80.7 (Table 8.8.3.B) | Capabilities |
| 17 Feb 2026 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 system card | 89.2 | DeepSearchQA F1, single agent, adaptive thinking, max effort, up to 10M tokens; multi-agent 91.1 (Figure 2.20.3.A, 2.20.3.1) | Capabilities |
| 14 Feb 2026 | | 77.4 | DeepSearchQA (Table 11) | Capabilities |
| 5 Feb 2026 | Claude Opus 4.6 system card | 91.3 | DeepSearchQA F1, best single-agent configuration, adaptive thinking, max effort, compaction (2.21.3.2, Figure 2.21.3.1.A); multi-agent 92.5 | Capabilities |
| 30 Jan 2026 | Kimi K2.5 technical report | 77.1 | DeepSearchQA (Table 4) | Capabilities |
More in Tool use
- AutomationBench In use Agent completes end-to-end business workflows inside a simulated company exposing dozens of REST APIs. Graded on resulting state.
Gemini 4 Carbon 53.9%
- MCP Atlas In use Multi-step workflows over real MCP servers. Scores tool-use competency on realistic tasks.
Muse Spark 1.1 88.1%
- BFCL V4 In use Models call functions and tools, including multi-turn agentic tasks with web search and memory. Checked against expected calls and outcomes.
Qwen3.7-Max 75%
- τ³-bench Banking In use Agents act as banking customer-service reps over many turns with a simulated user, following policy. Pass^1 on the final database state.
Qwen 3.8 Max 55.1%
- Claw-Eval In use 300 human-verified agent tasks (service orchestration, multimodal, multi-turn dialogue) audited via traces and snapshots. Rubric scores with Pass^3 consistency. Claude Sonnet 4.6 81.4%
- MCPMark In use Agent stress-tests realistic MCP tool use (GitHub, Notion, Postgres, browser). Graded by programmatic verification scripts. Kimi K3 94.5%