Human Feedback Types
strongRubric Rating
Directly usable for protocol triage.
"Recent progress in deep research systems has been impressive, but evaluation still lags behind real user needs."
HFEPX · Eval paper review
Fangda Ye, Yuxin Hu, Pengxiang Zhu, Yibo Li +18 more
Published
Mar 30, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Moderate
Usefulness score
50/100 (Medium)
Extraction confidence
55% (Moderate)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Not reported
Signals refreshed
Mar 30, 2026
This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.
Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.
Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.
Best use
Secondary protocol comparison source
Use if you need
Background context only.
What to verify
Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.
Main weakness
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
Recent progress in deep research systems has been impressive, but evaluation still lags behind real user needs. Existing benchmarks predominantly assess final reports using fixed rubrics, failing to evaluate the underlying research process. Most also offer limited multimodal coverage, rely on synthetic tasks that do not reflect real-world query complexity, and cannot be refreshed as knowledge evolves. To address these gaps, we introduce MiroEval, a benchmark and evaluation framework for deep research systems. The benchmark comprises 100 tasks (70 text-only, 30 multimodal), all grounded in real user needs and constructed via a dual-path pipeline that supports periodic updates, enabling a live and evolving setting. The proposed evaluation suite assesses deep research systems along three complementary dimensions: adaptive synthesis quality evaluation with task-specific rubrics, agentic factuality verification via active retrieval and reasoning over both web sources and multimodal attachments, and process-centric evaluation audits how the system searches, reasons, and refines throughout its investigation. Evaluation across 13 systems yields three principal findings: the three evaluation dimensions capture complementary aspects of system capability, with each revealing distinct strengths and weaknesses across systems; process quality serves as a reliable predictor of overall outcome while revealing weaknesses invisible to output-level metrics; and multimodal tasks pose substantially greater challenges, with most systems declining by 3 to 10 points. The MiroThinker series achieves the most balanced performance, with MiroThinker-H1 ranking the highest overall in both settings. Human verification and robustness results confirm the reliability of the benchmark and evaluation framework. MiroEval provides a holistic diagnostic tool for the next generation of deep research agents.
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.
Rubric Rating
Directly usable for protocol triage.
"Recent progress in deep research systems has been impressive, but evaluation still lags behind real user needs."
None explicit
Validate eval design from full paper text.
"Recent progress in deep research systems has been impressive, but evaluation still lags behind real user needs."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"Recent progress in deep research systems has been impressive, but evaluation still lags behind real user needs."
Miroeval
Useful for quick benchmark comparison.
"To address these gaps, we introduce MiroEval, a benchmark and evaluation framework for deep research systems."
Not extracted
No metric anchors detected.
"Recent progress in deep research systems has been impressive, but evaluation still lags behind real user needs."
No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.
Recent progress in deep research systems has been impressive, but evaluation still lags behind real user needs.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
Detected: Rubric Rating
Evaluation mode is explicit
No clear evaluation mode extracted.
Quality control reporting appears
No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Benchmark or dataset anchors are present
Detected: Miroeval
Metric reporting is present
No metric terms extracted.