Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

MiroEval: Benchmarking Multimodal Deep Research Agents in Process and Outcome

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

Should you rely on this paper?

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.

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.

Human feedback signal
Detected
From extracted signals
Evaluation signal
Weak or implicit
Validate from full paper
Usefulness for eval research
50/100
Moderate-confidence candidate

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

Abstract

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.

What we could verify

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.

Human Feedback Types

strong

Rubric Rating

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"Recent progress in deep research systems has been impressive, but evaluation still lags behind real user needs."

Evaluation Modes

missing

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."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Recent progress in deep research systems has been impressive, but evaluation still lags behind real user needs."

Benchmarks / Datasets

strong

Miroeval

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"To address these gaps, we introduce MiroEval, a benchmark and evaluation framework for deep research systems."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Recent progress in deep research systems has been impressive, but evaluation still lags behind real user needs."

Benchmarks and datasets

Miroeval

Reported metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
Yes
Feedback types
Rubric Rating
Rater population
Not reported
Unit of annotation
Multi Dim Rubric
Expertise required
General
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
None
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Moderate
Use this page as
Secondary protocol comparison source

Research brief

Metadata summary

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.

Key takeaways

  • 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.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Contribution summary

  • 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.
  • To address these gaps, we introduce MiroEval, a benchmark and evaluation framework for deep research systems.

Why it matters for eval

  • Recent progress in deep research systems has been impressive, but evaluation still lags behind real user needs.
  • To address these gaps, we introduce MiroEval, a benchmark and evaluation framework for deep research systems.

Researcher checklist

  • 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.