Human Feedback Types
missingNone explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Deep research requires connecting multiple steps of search, reasoning, and computation, with intermediate findings guiding what to investigate next."
HFEPX · Eval paper review
M. Yigit Turali, Shreyas Rajesh, M. Efe Lorasdagi, Chenda Duan +2 more
Published
Oct 10, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Moderate
Usefulness score
25/100 (Low)
Extraction confidence
55% (Moderate)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Not reported
Signals refreshed
Oct 16, 2026
This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.
Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.
Best use
Background context only
Use if you need
A benchmark-and-metrics comparison anchor.
What to verify
Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.
Main weakness
No major weakness surfaced.
Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
Deep research requires connecting multiple steps of search, reasoning, and computation, with intermediate findings guiding what to investigate next. As investigations grow, agents must maintain research state across model calls and check findings before errors propagate into subsequent work. We introduce PANINI-DR, a multi-agent harness that separates coordination of the overall investigation from the research and verification of individual subquestions. A shared workspace, built on the Generative Semantic Workspace representation, records subquestions, their dependencies, findings, and supporting evidence. Researchers investigate individual subquestions, while a separate verification agent checks proposed answers against those subquestions and their evidence. Verification feedback guides further investigation, and recorded findings inform subsequent assignments. We evaluate PANINI-DR on BrowseComp-Plus, FRAMES, and MoNaCo against seven state-of-the-art deep-research harnesses, all using a shared language-model backbone and frozen corpora. PANINI-DR achieves the strongest average performance across the three benchmarks. On BrowseComp-Plus, it achieves 73.3% accuracy, outperforming the next-best harness by 16.0 points. Its advantage is strongest on hard questions, where it answers nearly twice as many as the next-best harness. Ablations further show that structured planning and persistent state improve performance, as does checking each finding against its cited evidence before it is reused. Because a model can answer correctly from memory alone, we also analyze the evidence retained by each harness. PANINI-DR achieves the highest answer recoverability from saved evidence on all three benchmarks, while complementary claim-support audits show stronger evidence-backed answers. Accounting for this evidence changes how harnesses compare and further strengthens PANINI-DR's advantage.
These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.
None explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Deep research requires connecting multiple steps of search, reasoning, and computation, with intermediate findings guiding what to investigate next."
Automatic Metrics
Includes extracted eval setup.
"Deep research requires connecting multiple steps of search, reasoning, and computation, with intermediate findings guiding what to investigate next."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"Deep research requires connecting multiple steps of search, reasoning, and computation, with intermediate findings guiding what to investigate next."
BrowseComp
Useful for quick benchmark comparison.
"We evaluate PANINI-DR on BrowseComp-Plus, FRAMES, and MoNaCo against seven state-of-the-art deep-research harnesses, all using a shared language-model backbone and frozen corpora."
Accuracy
Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.
"On BrowseComp-Plus, it achieves 73.3% accuracy, outperforming the next-best harness by 16.0 points."
Deep research requires connecting multiple steps of search, reasoning, and computation, with intermediate findings guiding what to investigate next.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
No explicit human feedback protocol detected.
Evaluation mode is explicit
Detected: Automatic Metrics
Quality control reporting appears
No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Benchmark or dataset anchors are present
Detected: BrowseComp
Metric reporting is present
Detected: accuracy