Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

Multi-agent coordination with site-specific agents generally lags centralized retrieval but closes the gap as models scale and can outperform it on question answering.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-05-10 16:23 UTC

load-bearing objection AgentWebBench sets up a direct comparison of multi-agent coordination versus centralized retrieval on web tasks and finds scale can flip the result on QA, but the content-agent simulation carries the main uncertainty. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2604.10938 v1 submitted 2026-04-13 cs.MA

AgentWebBench: Benchmarking Multi-Agent Coordination in Agentic Web

Shanshan Zhong , Kate Shen , Chenyan Xiong This is my paper
classification cs.MA
keywords multi-agent systemsweb agentsbenchmarkingdecentralized information accessLLM coordinationquestion answeringweb search
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces a benchmark to test how user agents gather and synthesize web information by talking to separate agents that each control one website's content. It runs four tasks that mirror typical web use, from finding ranked lists to open-ended research, across multiple large language models and coordination methods. Results show the expected penalty from not having direct access to all data at once, yet this penalty shrinks with bigger models and reverses on question answering. The work also tracks how traffic would flow in such a system, how extra thinking time helps, and where current agents still fail at planning or evidence handling.

Core claim

AgentWebBench demonstrates that decentralized multi-agent coordination for web tasks trails direct centralized retrieval because the user agent must route requests through site-specific agents, but the performance difference narrows with increasing model scale and reverses in favor of coordination on question-answering tasks.

What carries the argument

AgentWebBench benchmark that measures answer synthesis by a user agent through repeated interactions with website-specific content agents on four tasks spanning ranked retrieval and open-ended synthesis.

Load-bearing premise

That the simulated website agents and the four chosen tasks stand in for real decentralized web access and ordinary user information needs.

What would settle it

A side-by-side comparison in which the same user queries are answered once by a centralized retriever and once by actual deployed content agents, then measured for accuracy and completeness on the same tasks.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Larger models reduce the coordination penalty and can produce stronger answers than centralized access on open-ended questions.
  • Decentralized access would concentrate user traffic on a small number of popular sites.
  • Allocating more steps for planning and interaction reliably improves both reliability and final task scores.
  • User agents primarily need stronger planning and synthesis steps, while content agents need more consistent retrieval and higher-quality evidence.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the scaling trend continues, decentralized agent interfaces could become competitive with or preferable to traditional search engines for complex queries.
  • Websites may need to invest in high-quality agent wrappers to avoid losing visibility in a world where traffic routes through other agents.
  • Benchmarks like this could be extended to measure real-time costs such as latency or monetary spend per query.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces AgentWebBench, a benchmark for evaluating multi-agent coordination in the Agentic Web paradigm. A user agent interacts with simulated website-specific content agents across four tasks spanning ranked retrieval (web search, web recommendation) and open-ended synthesis (question answering, deep research). Evaluations with seven LLMs and three coordination strategies show multi-agent approaches generally lag centralized retrieval due to access limits, but the gap narrows with model scale and multi-agent can outperform on QA. Additional findings address traffic concentration, test-time scaling benefits, interaction requirements, and failure modes in planning/retrieval. Code, data, and APIs are released publicly.

Significance. If the benchmark's simulations hold, the work supplies useful empirical data on challenges in decentralized agentic access and highlights scale as a mitigator for coordination gaps, with potential to inform Agentic Web development. The public release of resources is a clear strength for reproducibility. Significance is tempered by dependence on simulation fidelity for the key outperformance claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4, Experimental Results: Performance comparisons (including multi-agent outperformance on QA and gap shrinkage with scale) are reported as directional findings without error bars, standard deviations, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests. This weakens assessment of whether observed advantages are reliable or attributable to variance, directly affecting the central empirical claims.
  2. [§3.2] §3.2, Content Agent Design: The simulation of content agents (central to modeling decentralized constraints with no direct corpus access) provides insufficient detail on retrieval mechanisms, noise models, dynamic content handling, or interface limitations. The QA outperformance result is load-bearing on these agents supplying realistic but restricted evidence; without such specification, results risk being simulation artifacts rather than evidence for the paradigm.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: Refers to 'seven advanced LLMs' without naming them; specifying the models would make the summary more self-contained.
  2. [§5] §5, Failure Analysis: The qualitative categorization of failures (planning, retrieval, synthesis) would be strengthened by quantitative breakdowns, e.g., failure type percentages by task and model.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive review of our paper. We address each of the major comments below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to improve the statistical reporting and the description of the content agent simulations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §4, Experimental Results: Performance comparisons (including multi-agent outperformance on QA and gap shrinkage with scale) are reported as directional findings without error bars, standard deviations, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests. This weakens assessment of whether observed advantages are reliable or attributable to variance, directly affecting the central empirical claims.

    Authors: We agree that including measures of variability and statistical tests would strengthen the presentation of our results. In the revised manuscript, we will add error bars (standard deviations) to the performance figures in Section 4, computed over multiple independent runs where feasible given computational constraints. Additionally, we will include statistical significance tests for the key comparisons, including the multi-agent outperformance on QA tasks and the gap reduction with model scale. This will provide a more rigorous assessment of the reliability of the observed trends. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §3.2, Content Agent Design: The simulation of content agents (central to modeling decentralized constraints with no direct corpus access) provides insufficient detail on retrieval mechanisms, noise models, dynamic content handling, or interface limitations. The QA outperformance result is load-bearing on these agents supplying realistic but restricted evidence; without such specification, results risk being simulation artifacts rather than evidence for the paradigm.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting the need for greater transparency in the content agent design. The current manuscript provides an overview in Section 3.2, but we acknowledge that more specifics are warranted to allow readers to fully evaluate the simulation's fidelity. In the revision, we will substantially expand this section to include comprehensive details on the retrieval mechanisms, noise models for simulating variability, approaches to dynamic content handling, and the interface limitations that model decentralized constraints. We will also reference the released code for exact implementations. These expansions will help clarify that the results are grounded in the intended simulation design. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely empirical benchmark with direct measurements

full rationale

The paper introduces AgentWebBench as a new benchmark for multi-agent coordination in the Agentic Web paradigm and reports empirical performance results across seven LLMs, three coordination strategies, and four tasks (ranked retrieval and open-ended synthesis). All claims, including the general lag behind centralized retrieval (with shrinkage at scale and occasional QA outperformance), are presented as direct observations from running the benchmark. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided text. The central results reduce only to the experimental setup and measurements themselves, with no reduction by construction to inputs. This aligns with the reader's assessment of a purely empirical study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on the domain assumption that the benchmark tasks and simulated agents capture key properties of the emerging Agentic Web paradigm, with no free parameters or new invented entities beyond the benchmark itself.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The four tasks (ranked retrieval and open-ended synthesis) cover common web information needs
    Stated directly in the abstract as the basis for task selection.
invented entities (1)
  • content agents no independent evidence
    purpose: Website-specific autonomous agents that manage and serve data through controlled interfaces
    Introduced as part of the Agentic Web paradigm to enable decentralized coordination.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5535 in / 1266 out tokens · 59979 ms · 2026-05-10T16:23:25.536921+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Agentic Web is an emerging paradigm where autonomous agents help users use online information. As the paradigm develops, content providers are also deploying agents to manage their data and serve it through controlled interfaces. This shift moves information access from centralized retrieval to decentralized coordination. To study this setting, we introduce AgentWebBench, a benchmark that evaluates how well a user agent synthesizes answers by interacting with website-specific content agents. We evaluate four tasks that cover common web information needs, spanning ranked retrieval (web search, web recommendation) and open-ended synthesis (question answering, deep research). Across seven advanced LLMs and three coordination strategies, multi-agent coordination generally lags behind centralized retrieval as expected, because user agent cannot directly access the corpus, but the gap shrinks with model scale and can even outperform centralized retrieval on question answering. This benchmark also enables us to study properties of the emerging paradigm of the digital world. We find that decentralized access concentrates traffic toward a small set of websites, test time scaling improves both interaction reliability and task performance, and strong results require sufficient interactions guided by careful planning. Finally, our failure analysis suggests that user agents need better planning and answer synthesis, while content agents need more reliable retrieval and evidence quality. Code, data, and APIs are released on https://github.com/cxcscmu/AgentWebBench.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.10938 by Chenyan Xiong, Kate Shen, Shanshan Zhong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of AgentWebBench. The benchmark models the Agentic Web paradigm where user agents coordinate with multiple autonomous content agents across information-seeking tasks. (a) User intents spanning four representative tasks: web search, web recommendation, question answering, and deep research. (b) User agent that analyzes intents, selects and queries content agents, and synthesizes responses. (c) Cont… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Impact of multi-agent coordination on web traffic. The charts show citation frequency for the 20 most cited sources (web￾sites or content agents) for Qwen3-4B and Gemini-3 user agents on the deep research task. In each subplot, sources are ranked by the frequency difference (Multi-Agent minus Classical). The up￾per section highlights sources cited more often under multi-agent decentralized coordination, wh… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Interaction efficiency across tasks in AgentWebBench. Turn is the number of agent responses. #Agent and #Req. are the numbers of contacted content agents and retrieval requests. Valid (%) is the success rate of parsing requests or returning results. Failure on Question Answering (Gemini-3) Query: In Plato’s analogy of the sun, what element does he compare to the Form of the Good in terms of its role in ena… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Impact of the different coordination strategies on web traffic. The charts illustrate the citation frequency of 20 most cited sources (websites or content agents) for Gemini-3 user agents on the deep research task. Each subplot is sorted vertically by the frequency difference (ToolE / ToolP / Multi-Agent minus Classical). The upper section highlights sources more frequently cited under the multi-agent coor… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. From Monoliths to Swarms: A Study of Attack Surface Evolution in the Transition to Multi-Agent Web Systems

    cs.CR 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    A new 'Telephone Loop' attack stalls multi-agent web systems in delegation cycles, succeeding in about 80% of baseline runs for three frontier models while failing against single-agent systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 90 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    clueweb22-en0028-59-01590: Design-based learning - Wikipedia

    work page

  2. [2]

    clueweb22-en0023-99-10424: Baseline Design - an overview — ScienceDirect Topics

    work page

  3. [3]

    clueweb22-en0041-18-02735: python - Finite difference method for 3D diffusion/heat equation - Stack Overflow

    work page

  4. [4]

    clueweb22-en0021-68-08764: python - Applying neumann boundary conditions to the diffusion equation - Stack Overflow

    work page

  5. [5]

    query”: “dbl design

    clueweb22-en0033-07-11750: GitHub - ECSIM/dbfc-dataset: Single DBFC Dataset ——————————————————————————————————————————————— Search Requests of User Agent: R1: search({“query”: “dbl design”, “websites”: [“en.wikipedia.org”, “www.researchgate.net”, “github.com”, “www.sciencedirect.com”]}) R2: search({“query”: “Design-Based Learning (DBL) educational design”...

    work page

  6. [6]

    clueweb22-en0035-37-06613: Uninstall Trend Micro OfficeScan?

    work page

  7. [7]

    clueweb22-en0012-70-09332: Why can’t I uninstall/remove Trend Micro completely from my

    work page

  8. [8]

    completely remove Trend Micro

    clueweb22-en0038-61-18799: Uninstalling Trend Micro remnants from Windows 10 [Return Documents]clueweb22-en0035-37-06613, clueweb22-en0038-61-18799, clueweb22-en0012-70-09332 ——————————————————————————————————————————————— 19 AgentWebBench: Benchmarking Multi-Agent Coordination in Agentic Web Analysis:The user agent correctly routed the query to the groun...

    work page

  9. [9]

    Cassidy/Quotes - Overwatch Wiki

    work page

  10. [10]

    LEGO Lane Stadium — The Key Play

    work page

  11. [11]

    The Peanuts Movie - YouTube

    work page

  12. [12]

    YOU Trailer (2018) Netflix - YouTube

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    ‘Dateline’ examines murder of Maurizio Gucci — NBC4 WCMH-TV

    work page

  14. [14]

    DeSantis Covid-19 mystery- POLITICO

    work page

  15. [15]

    The 15 Most Annoying Celebrity Couples That Get On Our Nerves

    work page

  16. [16]

    xQc playlist 2021 - YouTube

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    website”: “twitter.com

    The Dark Side of K-Pop: Assault, Prostitution, Suicide, and Spycams : popheads [Next Document] {“website”: “twitter.com”, “doc title”: “xQcOWUpdates on Twitter: BREAKING: xQc has just recieved a DMCA strike for a clip from May of 2019. This is very bad for his channel and it could be deleted at any point with no warning if they find more violations. / Twi...

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    clueweb22-en0020-00-11267: 10 Best Roblox Games in 2021 - News+ on RCTI+

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    clueweb22-en0009-84-18751: Chi Chi London — Women’s Clothing & Fashion Dresses US – Chi Chi London US

    work page

  20. [20]

    clueweb22-en0026-47-19064: The Dark Side of K-Pop: Assault, Prostitution, Suicide, and Spycams : popheads

    work page

  21. [21]

    clueweb22-en0042-33-06382: NotSo Superficial - YouTube

    work page

  22. [22]

    clueweb22-en0028-22-06863: BANNED K-POP MUSIC VIDEOS - TOO HOT FOR TV! [Part 1] - YouTube

    work page

  23. [23]

    query”: “major music industry scandals and k-pop controversies explained

    clueweb22-en0044-34-00412: Top 10 Biggest Corporate Scandals - YouTube ——————————————————————————————————————————————— Search Requests of User Agent: R1: search({“query”: “major music industry scandals and k-pop controversies explained”, “websites”: [“en.wikipedia.org”, “www.youtube.com”, “www.reddit.com”]}) ———————————————————————————————————————————————...

    work page

  24. [24]

    Ana de Armas Measurements: Height, Weight, Bra Size, Breast Size, & More

    work page

  25. [25]

    Kodak Black Height, Weight, Age, Girlfriend, Family & Biography

    work page

  26. [26]

    Bernadette Peters Height, Weight, Measurements, Bra Size, Shoe, Biography

    work page

  27. [27]

    Song Ji-a Height, Weight, Net Worth, Age, Birthday, Wikipedia, Who, Nationality, Biography — TG Time

    work page

  28. [28]

    Taylor Russell — Body Measurements

    work page

  29. [29]

    Bella Hadid Height in cm, Meter, Feet and Inches, Age, Bio

    work page

  30. [30]

    How tall is Zendaya? Real Height Revealed! - YouTube

    work page

  31. [31]

    website”: “www.quora.com

    Tom Holland Height in cm, Meter, Feet and Inches, Age, Bio [Next Document] {“website”: “www.quora.com”, “doc title”: “Is Zendaya actually 510? - Quora”} ——————————————————————————————————————————————— Search Requests of User Agent: R1: search({“query”: “Zendaya and Tom Holland height difference comparison”, “websites”: [“en.wikipedia.org”, “www.youtube.co...

    work page

  32. [34]

    Tom Holland height site:quora.com

    clueweb22-en0016-65-08451: Is Zendaya cheating on Tom Holland with Timoth Chalamet? - Quora R2:search(“Tom Holland height site:quora.com”) Retrieved Documents:

    work page

  33. [37]

    How tall is Tom Holland? site:quora.com

    clueweb22-en0016-65-08451: Is Zendaya cheating on Tom Holland with Timoth˘00e9e Chalamet? - Quora R3:search(“How tall is Tom Holland? site:quora.com”) Retrieved Documents:

    work page

  34. [40]

    What is Tom Holland’s height according to Quora? site:quora.com

    clueweb22-en0016-65-08451: Is Zendaya cheating on Tom Holland with Timoth˘00e9e Chalamet? - Quora R4:search(“What is Tom Holland’s height according to Quora? site:quora.com”) Retrieved Documents:

    work page

  35. [43]

    What is Tom Holland’s height? site:quora.com

    clueweb22-en0016-65-08451: Is Zendaya cheating on Tom Holland with Timoth˘00e9e Chalamet? - Quora R5:search(“What is Tom Holland’s height? site:quora.com”) Retrieved Documents:

    work page

  36. [44]

    clueweb22-en0002-18-14059: Is Tom Holland dating his Spider-Man co-star Zendaya? - Quora 21 AgentWebBench: Benchmarking Multi-Agent Coordination in Agentic Web

    work page

  37. [46]

    What is Tom Holland’s exact height site:quora.com

    clueweb22-en0016-65-08451: Is Zendaya cheating on Tom Holland with Timoth˘00e9e Chalamet? - Quora R6:search(“What is Tom Holland’s exact height site:quora.com”) Retrieved Documents:

    work page

  38. [49]

    How tall is Tom Holland according to Quora?

    clueweb22-en0016-65-08451: Is Zendaya cheating on Tom Holland with Timoth˘00e9e Chalamet? - Quora R7:search(“How tall is Tom Holland according to Quora?”) Retrieved Documents:

    work page

  39. [50]

    clueweb22-en0002-18-14059: Is Tom Holland dating his Spider-Man co-star Zendaya? - Quora

    work page

  40. [51]

    clueweb22-en0008-35-08714: Is Zendaya actually 5’10? - Quora

    work page

  41. [52]

    site:www.quora.com Tom Holland height

    clueweb22-en0016-65-08451: Is Zendaya cheating on Tom Holland with Timoth Chalamet? - Quora R8:search(“site:www.quora.com Tom Holland height”) End ——————————————————————————————————————————————— Analysis:The user agent correctly selects the ground-truth domain (quora.com) and sends a relevant query about “Zendaya and Tom Holland” height comparison, but th...

    work page

  42. [53]

    Cold sores (fever blisters): Causes, symptoms, treatment, and more

    work page

  43. [54]

    Tongue bumps: Causes, when to see a doctor, and treatment

    work page

  44. [55]

    Canker Sores — Shoppers Drug Mart®

    work page

  45. [56]

    Flight Rising — Flight Rising Wiki — Fandom

    work page

  46. [57]

    FAQ: What are FIPS codes?

    work page

  47. [58]

    V olunteer Guardian Program

    work page

  48. [59]

    Lie Bumps (Transient Lingual Papillitis)

    work page

  49. [60]

    QueryGen is a non-agent baseline

    Flintstones Vitamins SHOCKING Reviews 2021 - Does It Really Work? 24 AgentWebBench: Benchmarking Multi-Agent Coordination in Agentic Web Table 9.QueryGen performance (%) on our web recommendation setting. QueryGen is a non-agent baseline. ModelN@3 N@5 R@3 R@5 Qwen3-4B-QueryGen 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Qwen3-14B-QueryGen 0.76 0.76 1.07 1.07 Qwen3-30B-A3B-QueryG...

    work page 2021

  50. [61]

    Want to learn Mandoa? Hopefully I can help - Learn Mandoa

    work page

  51. [62]

    twenty one pilots (@twentyonepilots) / Twitter

    work page

  52. [63]

    Illinois Arrests – Find arrest records in Illinois

    work page

  53. [64]

    Using Guides - Dozuki

    work page

  54. [65]

    Clerks — Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

    work page

  55. [66]

    All Products — Smithfield

    work page

  56. [67]

    50 Best F1 Memes - Merry Memes

    work page

  57. [68]

    Show More button in descriptions has disappeared! - YouTube Community

    work page

  58. [69]

    TWIN vs TWIN REAL TELEPATHY TEST - YouTube <Next Webpage> Input plugin systemd cannot be loaded · Issue #1696 · fluent/fluent-bit · GitHub We evaluate QueryGen (He et al., 2025), a query-generation baseline that maps user browsing history to retrieval queries, in our web recommendation setting (Table 9). The resulting near-zero N@k and R@k scores are cons...

    work page 2025

  59. [70]

    Identify the key factual constraints in the Question

    work page

  60. [71]

    Check whether the Content provides evidence that supports those constraints in relation to the Answer

    work page

  61. [72]

    If the Answer could reasonably be inferred from the Content under the Question’s requirements, return true

    work page

  62. [73]

    is related

    Otherwise, return false. Respond with JSON only in the following format: {“is related”: true or false, “reason”: “concise, evidence-based explanation”} # Question <Question> # Answer 27 AgentWebBench: Benchmarking Multi-Agent Coordination in Agentic Web <User agent final wrong answer> # Content <Content agent response> K. Agent Prompts AgentWebBench emplo...

    work page 2025

  63. [82]

    query”: query that send to each website, “websites

    <summary>important parts of the history turns </summary>: summarize the history turns. Reflect the search queries and search results in your history turns, and keep the information you consider important for retrieving relevant documents. Still keep the tag structure, keep search queries between <search>and </search>, and keep search results between <info...

    work page

  64. [83]

    query”: query that send to each website, “websites

    Your history search attempts: query in format <search>{“query”: query that send to each website, “websites”: [“website name”, ]}< /search>and the returned search results in <information>and </information>. Search results contain documents with their IDs

    work page

  65. [84]

    IMPORTANT: You must strictly adhere to the following rules:

    The query to retrieve documents for. IMPORTANT: You must strictly adhere to the following rules:

    work page

  66. [88]

    The list should be sorted by relevance (most relevant first)

    When you output the final answer, you MUST return a sorted list of document IDs in JSON format. The list should be sorted by relevance (most relevant first). Valid actions:

    work page

  67. [89]

    query”: query that send to each website, “websites

    <search>{“query”: query that send to each website, “websites”: [“website name”, ]}< /search>: search the web for documents if you consider you need more information. The search will return documents with their IDs

    work page

  68. [90]

    The document IDs should be sorted by relevance (most relevant first)

    <answer>[”doc id1”, “doc id2”, ...] </answer>: output the final sorted list of document IDs in JSON array format. The document IDs should be sorted by relevance (most relevant first). Extract document IDs from the search results in <informa- tion></information>tags

    work page

  69. [91]

    query”: query that send to each website, “websites

    <summary>important parts of the history turns </summary>: summarize the history turns. Reflect the search queries and search results in your history turns, and keep the information you consider important for retrieving relevant documents. Still keep the tag structure, keep search queries between <search>and </search>, and keep search results between <info...

    work page 2024

  70. [92]

    query”: query that send to each website, “websites

    Your history search attempts: query in format <search>{“query”: query that send to each website, “websites”: [“website name”, ]}</search>and the returned search results in<information>and</information>

    work page

  71. [96]

    Valid actions:

    **Don’t do duplicate search.** Pay attention to the history search results. Valid actions:

    work page

  72. [97]

    query”: query that send to each website, “websites

    <search>{“query”: query that send to each website, “websites”: [“website name”, ]}< /search>: search the web for information if you consider you lack some knowledge

    work page

  73. [98]

    The answer should be short and concise

    <answer>answer </answer>: output the final answer if you consider you are able to answer the question. The answer should be short and concise. No justification is needed

    work page

  74. [99]

    query”: query that send to each website, “websites

    <summary>important parts of the history turns </summary>: summarize the history turns. Reflect the search queries and search results in you history turns, and keep the information you consider important for answering the question and generating your report. Still keep the tag structure, keep search queries between <search>and </search>, and keep search re...

    work page

  75. [100]

    query”: query that send to each website, “websites

    Your history turns information: it might contains your previous plan, report scripts, search results. For search results, queries are in format <search>{“query”: query that send to each website, “websites”: [“website name”, ]}< /search>and the returned search results in<information>and</information>

    work page

  76. [104]

    **Don’t do duplicate search.** Pay attention to the history search results

    work page

  77. [105]

    You must consider the history search results and update your report scripts.**

    **Do not always perform the search action. You must consider the history search results and update your report scripts.**

    work page

  78. [106]

    When you output the final report in <answer>...</answer>, if you have used information from web search results, you MUST add citations in the form [n] inside the report text

    work page

  79. [107]

    You are NOT allowed to invent new websites

    Each [n] MUST correspond to one website (domain) that appears inside <information>...</information>in the history. You are NOT allowed to invent new websites. The same website must always reuse the same [n]

    work page

  80. [108]

    List each [n] and the corresponding website, for example:

    At the END of the report (still inside <answer>), add a ”References” section in markdown. List each [n] and the corresponding website, for example:

    work page

Showing first 80 references.