Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 35 cited by

WebShaper: Agentically Data Synthesizing via Information-Seeking Formalization

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read WebShaper claims that formalizing web information-seeking tasks as set-theoretic Knowledge Projections yields training data that lifts open-source agents to state-of-the-art results on GAIA and WebWalkerQA.

desk verdict A genuinely new formalization-driven recipe for web-agent training data, with consistent benchmark gains, but the paper's central correctness invariant is asserted rather than verified and the evaluation lacks error bars and contamination checks. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15061 v1 pith:S3BVIFCF submitted 2025-07-20 cs.CL cs.AI

Zhengwei Tao , Jialong Wu , Wenbiao Yin , Junkai Zhang , Baixuan Li , Haiyang Shen , Kuan Li , Liwen Zhang
show 5 more authors
Xinyu Wang Yong Jiang Pengjun Xie Fei Huang Jingren Zhou
This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords information-seekingagentsdatasynthesisformalizationKnowledgeProjectionssettheorylayer-wiseexpansionwebGAIAbenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

WebShaper argues that the bottleneck in training web information-seeking agents is how the training questions are generated: information-driven pipelines collect web content first and then write questions around it, which can make the reasoning structure of the question diverge from the structure of the answer. The paper proposes to invert that order by formalizing every sought answer as a set-theoretic expression built from Knowledge Projections, then synthesizing questions by expanding that expression layer by layer. On this basis it constructs a dataset, trains agents on it, and reports that the resulting models outperform previous open-source information-seeking systems on GAIA and WebWalkerQA. The claim a sympathetic reader should take away is that a controllable formal representation of the task, rather than more data or more natural-language rewriting, is what improves the synthesized training signal.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Knowledge Projection: for a relation $R\subseteq E\times E$ and an entity set $S\subseteq E$, $R(S)=\{u \mid \exists v\in S,\ (u,v)\in R \text{ or } (v,u)\in R\}$. A target set $T$ is written as an intersection of projections, $T=\bigcap_i R_i(S_i)$, and R-union is flattened into a merged set using the distributive law, so the formal language only needs intersections of triplets $[X, r, S]$. This representation converts an information-seeking question into a graph whose leaf constants are the only inputs, which is what makes the layer-wise expansion strategy possible: each leaf constant is expanded into a sub-question that has that constant as its answer, so the whole question deepens without attaching extra constants to the target. The Expander agent, built on the ReAct loop with Search, Summarize, and Validate tools, performs the actual expansion and validation at each layer.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of final expanded questions, hide the formal graph, and have independent annotators (or a stronger oracle) answer each question with web access; then compare each recorded answer with the synthesized one. If a substantial fraction diverge, the claimed answer-preserving property fails at the validation step. A cheaper version is to rerun the synthesis with strict uniqueness validation, requiring the sub-question's answer to be exactly the constant, and check whether downstream GAIA scores drop or rise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the quality of training data for web-based information-seeking agents is set by the formal structure of the question, not by the richness of the retrieved content. It formalizes an information-seeking task as a query $q(T) \triangleq \,?T$ for an entity set $T$ built by composing Knowledge Projections, with intersections of projections carrying multiple conditions and R-union absorbed through the distributive law $R(S_1)\cup R(S_2)=R(S_1\cup S_2)$. The synthesis pipeline starts from seed questions, represents each one as a list of triplets $[X, r, S]$ (variables prefixed by `V@`, constants by `C@`), and repeatedly expands the formal graph: at every layer an agentic Expander takes a leaf constant, searches the web, forms a sub-question whose answer type matches that constant, validates it, and splices it into the question. The authors claim this layer-wise expansion preserves the answer set of the original question while preventing reasoning shortcuts, and they report that models trained on the resulting dataset reach state-of-the-art scores among open-source information-seeking agents on GAIA and WebWalkerQA, with an ablation showing the formal-language version beats a natural-language expansion version.

Load-bearing premise

The expansion step assumes that replacing a constant with a sub-question leaves the answer set unchanged, but the Validate tool only checks that the constant's type satisfies the sub-question, not that the constant is the unique answer, so an underspecified sub-question can silently change the true answer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The synthesized dataset transfers across base models: WebShaper improves Qwen-2.5-32B, Qwen-2.5-72B, and QwQ-32B relative to training on WebWalkerQA, E2HQA, and MHQA, so the formalization's benefit is not tied to one architecture.
  • After supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning with GRPO further raises GAIA and WebWalkerQA scores, so the data also supports RL-based strategy learning.
  • Layer-wise expansion produces longer and more uniform tool-use chains than sequential expansion, which should make trained agents more persistent on multi-hop web tasks.
  • The formalization enables deliberate control of question difficulty and coverage by setting the number of expansion layers, which is impossible when questions are expanded in natural language.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the answer-preserving property holds in practice, the same Knowledge Projection formalization could be applied to other entity-seeking tasks with verifiable relations, such as database queries, knowledge-graph retrieval, or structured fact extraction, not just open-web search.
  • The type-level validation is the likeliest point of label drift; a testable extension is to require the validator to produce the exact constant or to list all valid answers before accepting a sub-question.
  • The paper's ablations isolate formal language and layer-wise structure, but they do not isolate seed-question quality; one could train on information-driven datasets that share the same seed pool to see how much of the gain is due to expansion structure alone.
  • The framework's claim that formalization prevents reasoning shortcuts suggests a further test: measure whether trained agents can still answer questions when the constants are pruned from the prompt, where shortcut-based models should fail more often.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces WebShaper, a formalization-driven pipeline for synthesizing training data for information-seeking (IS) agents. The core idea is to represent IS tasks through set-theoretic Knowledge Projections (KPs), compose seed questions, and then iteratively expand them with an agentic Expander that retrieves web knowledge, constructs sub-questions, and validates them. The resulting 5,000 trajectories are used to train agents via SFT and GRPO-based RL. The authors report state-of-the-art results among open-source IS agents on GAIA and WebWalkerQA across three backbones, and ablations attributing the gains to the formalization and to the layer-wise expansion strategy.

Significance. If the claims hold, WebShaper is a valuable contribution: it provides one of the first set-theoretic formalizations for IS data synthesis, releases the dataset and code, and demonstrates consistent gains over strong baselines on three backbones. The formalization-versus-NL and layer-wise-versus-sequential ablations are the right kinds of controlled experiments and support the central mechanism. However, the load-bearing invariant of answer-set preservation is asserted rather than verified, and the empirical evaluation lacks variance and contamination analysis. These issues are fixable and do not invalidate the approach, but they need to be addressed before the benchmark claims can be fully trusted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2.2, Eq. (11); Section 3.2.3] The claim that q_{n+1}(T) always has the same answer as q_n(T) is asserted without proof, and it is not ensured by the Expander's validation procedure. Section 3.2.3 states that Validate checks only whether the type of constant C satisfies the sub-question, not whether C is strictly the answer. If a sub-question is satisfied by multiple entities of the same type, the expanded target set is a superset of the intended T, making the natural-language question ambiguous and the training label incorrect. This invariant is load-bearing because Figure 7a attributes the gains to the formalization. Please provide either a proof of uniqueness under the layer-wise construction, a per-expansion verification step that checks strict answer identity, or a quantitative analysis of how often the current validation admits non-unique sub-questions and how that noise affects downstream performance.
  2. [Table 1; Figure 6; Figure 7] All reported scores are single point estimates without error bars, number of seeds, or significance tests. Some margins over strong baselines are small (e.g., QwQ-32B: 53.3 vs. 51.5 for WebDancer on GAIA; 49.7 vs. 47.9 on WebWalkerQA), so the state-of-the-art claim and the formalization attribution are not yet statistically supported. Please report multiple runs or confidence intervals, and state explicitly whether the GAIA evaluation is on the public validation split or the hidden test split and how the judge-based Pass@1 metric was calibrated.
  3. [Section 3.1; Table 1; Section 4.2] The seed questions are generated by random walks over Wikipedia, and WebWalkerQA is also constructed from web traversal data. The paper reports no contamination analysis between the WebShaper training set and the GAIA or WebWalkerQA evaluation sets. Since the benchmark improvements are the main evidence for the method, please include an n-gram or embedding-based overlap analysis, a deduplication step against the evaluation sets, and a discussion of the remaining overlap risk.
  4. [Section 4.3.4; Figure 7a] The formalization-versus-NL ablation is performed only at the SFT stage, while the main results in Table 1 are reported after SFT plus RL. It would strengthen the central claim to show whether the formalization advantage persists after RL, or to justify why the SFT-only comparison is sufficient to attribute the final RL improvements to the formalization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3] The sentence "the agent first first produces a Thought" contains a duplicated word; please revise.
  2. [Section 3.2.3] There are typos: "severl queries" should be "several queries" and "R-Union oepration" should be "R-Union operation."
  3. [Section 4.3.6] The text claims "statistically significantly higher proportions" but no statistical test is reported; either add a test or soften the wording to "substantially higher proportions."
  4. [Figure 7] The legend labels such as "Pass@1-Fl" and "Pass@1-NL" are hard to parse at a glance; consider using full names such as "Pass@1 with formalization" and "Pass@1 with natural language."
  5. [Section 4.2] The sentence "WebShaper is currently the only open source method with a score of more than 60 points" should specify that this refers to the GAIA average of the Qwen-2.5-72B model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: benchmark gains are empirical and externally anchored by GAIA; the unverified answer-set preservation invariant is a correctness gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain runs from a set-theoretic formalization (KP operations, q(T) ≜ ?T) through an agentic Expander and layer-wise expansion to a synthesized dataset, then to benchmark scores. None of these steps reduces to its own input by construction: GAIA and WebWalkerQA scores are measured, not derived from the formalization equations, and no parameter fitted to a subset of data is relabeled as a prediction. The ablation in Figure 7a is an empirical comparison between formal-language and natural-language expansion, not an identity. The main verification concern is real but is not circularity: Section 3.2.2 states 'the q_{n+1}(T) always has the same answer as q_n(T)', while Section 3.2.3 admits that Validate 'does not check whether C is strictly the answer to the sub-question' but only whether the type satisfies it. This is an unproven invariant and a label-noise risk, but the benchmark gains do not reduce to that invariant by definition. Same-lab artifacts (WebWalkerQA benchmark, WebDancer seed completion, QwQ-based validation and trajectory generation) are self-referential in provenance, but GAIA is an external anchor and these citations are not load-bearing for the formalization argument. The paper should be scored as substantially self-contained empirically, with a correctness caveat rather than a circularity finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claims rest mainly on the formalization axioms above and on hand-chosen pipeline sizes. No physical or ontological entities are introduced; Knowledge Projection is a defined mathematical construct rather than a postulated entity with independent falsifiable handles. The most fragile assumptions are the answer-preservation property of expansion and the reliability of QwQ-based validation.

free parameters (5)
  • Expansion depth l = unspecified
    Section 3.2.2: "The number of expanding layers l is a hyperparameter for controlling the task coverage and difficulty"; no ablation isolates its effect.
  • Seed acceptance threshold = at least 1 correct rollout out of 5
    Section 3.1: seed questions are kept only when at least one of five WebDancer/QwQ rollouts answers correctly, filtering the dataset by teacher capability.
  • Trajectory dataset size = 5,000
    Section 3.3: the final dataset contains 5,000 trajectories; no scaling study separates data size from method quality.
  • Rollouts per question = 5
    Sections 3.1 and 3.3 use 5 rollouts for both seed filtering and trajectory construction.
  • Top-k search results = 10
    Appendix A: Search returns the top-10 results per query, shaping the retrieval content used to synthesize questions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Every IS task can be represented as a target set T built by Eq. (5)-(6): intersections of unions of Knowledge Projections, with recursive substitutions.
    Section 2, Eqs. (5)-(6). This is the core formalization premise; it restricts tasks to binary-relation queries without negation, comparison, or aggregation.
  • domain assumption The Summarize tool produces a valid union constant set for R-Union, so R(S1) ∪ R(S2) = R(S1 ∪ S2) holds in practice.
    Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.3: the Expander summarizes multiple URLs into a merged set; this assumes LLM summarization is factually accurate and complete.
  • ad hoc to paper Layer-wise expansion preserves the answer set, q_{n+1}(T) = q_n(T).
    Section 3.2.2 asserts this without proof; Section 3.2.3 says validation only checks type consistency, not uniqueness of C as the answer.
  • domain assumption QwQ rollouts and LLM-as-judge correctly determine answer correctness for seed filtering, trajectory filtering, and benchmark evaluation.
    Sections 3.1, 3.3, and 4.1 rely on LLM judgments for correctness; no human agreement or calibration is reported.
  • domain assumption GAIA and WebWalkerQA test questions do not overlap with WebShaper training data.
    Sections 4.1-4.2: no contamination or overlap analysis is reported between the synthesized training set and the evaluation benchmarks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of WebShaper: Agentically Data Synthesizing via Information-Seeking Formalization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S3BVIFCF

@misc{pith2026250715061,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: WebShaper: Agentically Data Synthesizing via Information-Seeking Formalization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S3BVIFCF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15061}
}
read the original abstract

The advent of Large Language Model (LLM)-powered agents has revolutionized artificial intelligence by enabling solutions to complex, open-ended tasks through web-based information-seeking (IS) capabilities. The scarcity of high-quality training data has limited the development of IS agents. Existing approaches typically adopt an information-driven paradigm that first collects web data and then generates questions based on the retrieval. However, this may lead to inconsistency between information structure and reasoning structure, question and answer. To mitigate, we propose a formalization-driven IS data synthesis framework WebShaper to construct a dataset. WebShaper systematically formalizes IS tasks through set theory. Central to the formalization is the concept of Knowledge Projections (KP), which enables precise control over reasoning structure by KP operation compositions. During synthesis, we begin by creating seed tasks, then use a multi-step expansion process. At each step, an agentic Expander expands the current formal question more complex with retrieval and validation tools based on our formalization. We train our model on the synthesized dataset. Experiment results demonstrate that WebShaper achieves state-of-the-art performance among open-sourced IS agents on GAIA and WebWalkerQA benchmarks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15061 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Results on GAIA information-seeking subset among the cutting-edge Deep Research models or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Data synthesis paradigm shift from information-driven to formalization-driven. “Source” [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A question-answer case in our information-seeking formalization. We use the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Structures on different expansion paradigms. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Domain distribution. We analyze the domain distributions of our dataset. The domain distribution of our dataset demonstrates rather comprehensive coverage across multiple thematic areas, as visualized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison with SFT and RL. The breadth and complexity of tasks introduced by our task formalization stimulate dynamic IS strategies during RL. Unlike generic datasets, our carefully curated scenarios require the model to iteratively query relevant information, effecti…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Discussions on formalization and layer-wise structure. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Tool call analysis. We show the distribution tool call count of the agent to solve a question in different datasets. We illustrate the tool call counts larger than 3, which shows the complicated trajectories proportion. Search Complexity (Figure 8a) WebShaper exhibits …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Case studies of our synthesized data. We show a question in natural language, our formalization, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Case comparison. “SSCS” stands for "Strange Stories from a Chinese Studio". [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 35 Pith papers

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

  1. FORT-Searcher: Synthesizing Shortcut-Resistant Search Tasks for Training Deep Search Agents

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    FORT synthesizes shortcut-resistant search tasks by controlling four identified shortcut risks across entity selection, graph construction, question formulation, and refinement, producing training data that yields age...

  2. Terminal-World: Scaling Terminal-Agent Environments via Agent Skills

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Terminal-World is a skill-based synthesis pipeline that generates 5,723 training environments and produces Terminal-World-32B which outperforms baselines on Terminal-Bench 2.0 using only 1.2% of the data.

  3. Evaluating the Search Agent in a Parallel World

    cs.AI 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Mind-ParaWorld creates parallel worlds with atomic facts to evaluate search agents on future scenarios, showing they synthesize evidence well but struggle with collection, coverage, sufficiency judgment, and stopping ...

  4. Inference-Time Scaling of Verification: Self-Evolving Deep Research Agents via Test-Time Rubric-Guided Verification

    cs.AI 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    DeepVerifier enables self-evolving deep research agents via rubric-guided verification at test time, delivering 8-11% accuracy gains on GAIA and XBench-DeepSearch subsets.

  5. Video-DeepResearch: Towards the Next-Generation Multimodal Deepresearch Agent

    cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Video-DeepResearch trains video agents with a two-stage SFT plus GRPO pipeline to do visual web searches before text searches, and introduces a 200-question benchmark requiring both video grounding and open-web knowledge.

  6. From Simple QA to Deep Research: A Verifiable Benchmark Constructed through Iterative Task Evolution

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An automatic pipeline evolves simple QA questions into 500 deep-research tasks with DAG-structured, fact-grounded rubrics that discriminate between models.

  7. Fetch-then-Explore: Decoupling Selection from Extraction over a Persistent Workspace for Search Agents

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fetch-then-Explore, which stores fetched pages in a per-question workspace and extracts evidence on demand with grep/read, beats visit-and-read and browsing baselines on BrowseComp across three LLM backbones.

  8. To Answer or to Abstain: Mitigating Search-Agent Hallucinations via Abstention-Aware Reinforcement Learning

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AWA-RL dynamically sets per-query abstention rewards from model prior capability and on-policy refusal rates, lifting precision up to 10.3% and RA-F1 while sacrificing little accuracy.

  9. UNIBROWSE: A Data-to-Agent Framework for Multimodal BrowseComp

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A unified KG-plus-live-web data pipeline covering all three multimodal BrowseComp information-flow patterns, plus an exploration-degree filter, yields a 35B agent at 54.4 avg accuracy.

  10. Empowering GUI Agents via Autonomous Experience Exploration and Hindsight Experience Utilization for Task Planning

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    PEEU enables a 7B MLLM to reach 30.6% accuracy on GUI task planning by autonomous exploration and hindsight experience synthesis, outperforming a 32B model through stronger high-level OOD generalization.

  11. Toward Generalist Autonomous Research via Hypothesis-Tree Refinement

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Arbor combines a coordinator, executors, and a hypothesis tree to enable cumulative autonomous research, outperforming Codex and Claude Code by over 2.5x on six real tasks and reaching 86.36% Any Medal on MLE-Bench Lite.

  12. Efficient Agentic Reasoning Through Self-Regulated Simulative Planning

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    SR²AM achieves competitive Pass@1 accuracy on diverse tasks with 25.8-95.3% fewer reasoning tokens than much larger models by using self-regulated simulative planning trained via supervised learning and RL.

  13. Walk the Talk: Bridging the Reasoning-Action Gap for Thinking with Images via Multimodal Agentic Policy Optimization

    cs.CV 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    MAPO improves multimodal chain-of-thought reasoning by requiring explicit textual descriptions of visual tool results and using a novel advantage estimator that combines semantic alignment with task rewards.

  14. LightThinker++: From Reasoning Compression to Memory Management

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    LightThinker++ adds explicit adaptive memory management and a trajectory synthesis pipeline to LLM reasoning, cutting peak token use by ~70% while gaining accuracy in standard and long-horizon agent tasks.

  15. A Tale of Two Graphs: Separating Knowledge Exploration from Outline Structure for Open-Ended Deep Research

    cs.IR 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Separating the knowledge an agent has from the outline it writes, and using knowledge-graph gaps to generate search queries, improves LLM deep-research report coverage and citation counts on three benchmarks.

  16. MiroThinker: Pushing the Performance Boundaries of Open-Source Research Agents via Model, Context, and Interactive Scaling

    cs.CL 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    MiroThinker shows that scaling agent-environment interactions via reinforcement learning lets a 72B open-source model reach up to 81.9% on GAIA and approach commercial performance on research benchmarks.

  17. CRMWeaver: Building Powerful Business Agent via Agentic RL and Shared Memories

    cs.CL 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    On CRMArena-Pro, a 4B-parameter agent trained with synthetic data plus RL and an inference-time memory oracle matches or outperforms 235B-parameter models, with the oracle providing part of the advantage.

  18. Lost in the Maze: Overcoming Context Limitations in Long-Horizon Agentic Search

    cs.CL 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SLIM separates search and browse tools and summarizes trajectories every 50 turns, beating several open-source agentic search systems on BrowseComp and HLE with fewer tool calls and lower cost.

  19. SFR-DeepResearch: Towards Effective Reinforcement Learning for Autonomously Reasoning Single Agents

    cs.AI 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 20B autonomously reasoning deep-research agent trained with synthetic-data RL reaches 28.7% on Humanity's Last Exam, exceeding several larger and proprietary baselines.

  20. The Landscape of Agentic Reinforcement Learning for LLMs: A Survey

    cs.AI 2025-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Survey that defines agentic RL for LLMs via POMDPs, introduces a taxonomy of planning/tool-use/memory/reasoning capabilities and domains, and compiles open environments from over 500 papers.

  21. WebWatcher: Breaking New Frontier of Vision-Language Deep Research Agent

    cs.IR 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    WebWatcher introduces a vision-language deep research agent trained on synthetic multimodal trajectories and RL that outperforms baselines on VQA benchmarks, along with a new BrowseComp-VL evaluation.

  22. Chain-of-Agents: End-to-End Agent Foundation Models via Multi-Agent Distillation and Agentic RL

    cs.AI 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A single LLM is trained with multi-agent distilled trajectories plus agentic RL, and the resulting Chain-of-Agents models set state-of-the-art Pass@1 scores among tool-integrated reasoning methods on GAIA, BrowseComp,...

  23. SearchOS-V1: Towards Robust Open-Domain Information-Seeking Agent Collaboration

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A multi-agent web-search framework that stores progress in shared evidence, coverage, and failure state reports the best F1 scores among compared baselines on WideSearch (80.3 item F1) and GISA (76.5 set F1).

  24. Latent Visual States for Efficient Multimodal Reasoning

    cs.CV 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    EVA generates adaptive Latent_slot tokens as internal visual thoughts, trained end-to-end with text tokens via D-GSPO on the EVA-230K dataset, claiming performance gains and better inference efficiency.

  25. ScaffoldAgent: Utility-Guided Dynamic Outline Optimization for Open-Ended Deep Research

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    ScaffoldAgent improves long-form report generation by modeling outline evolution as expansion, contraction, and revision guided by a utility function estimating downstream value.

  26. Agentic Environment Engineering for Large Language Models: A Survey of Environment Modeling, Synthesis, Evaluation, and Application

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    This survey categorizes agentic environments for LLMs by eight attributes and domains, introduces symbolic and neural synthesis paradigms with evaluation, and outlines four agent evolution pathways plus three environm...

  27. Struct-Searcher: Agentic Structural Thinking Advances Multimodal Deep Information Seeking

    cs.CV 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Struct-Searcher introduces a structural agentic workflow grounded in belief revision theory that maintains an evolving multimodal graph for conflict-aware deep information seeking and reports accuracy gains on several...

  28. Rethinking Continual Experience Internalization for Self-Evolving LLM Agents

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Existing methods for turning LLM interaction experience into parametric skills collapse over multiple iterations; principle-level experience, step-wise injection, and off-policy teacher distillation yield more stable ...

  29. ViDR: Grounding Multimodal Deep Research Reports in Source Visual Evidence

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    ViDR treats source figures as retrievable and verifiable evidence objects in multimodal deep research reports and introduces MMR Bench+ to measure improvements in visual integration and verifiability.

  30. Mind DeepResearch Technical Report

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    MindDR combines a Planning Agent, DeepSearch Agent, and Report Agent with SFT cold-start, Search-RL, Report-RL, and preference alignment to reach competitive scores on research benchmarks using 30B-scale models.

  31. Mini-o3: Scaling Up Reasoning Patterns and Interaction Turns for Visual Search

    cs.CV 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Mini-o3 scales visual search reasoning to tens of interaction turns via a new probe dataset, iterative trajectory collection, and over-turn masking in RL, claiming SOTA performance while training only up to six turns.

  32. Cognitive Kernel-Pro: A Framework for Deep Research Agents and Agent Foundation Models Training

    cs.AI 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Cognitive Kernel-Pro provides an open-source agent framework with curated training data across web, file, code, and reasoning domains plus test-time reflection and voting, achieving SOTA results on GAIA among free agents.

  33. SimpleSearch-VL: A Simple Recipe for Multimodal Agentic Deep Search

    cs.CV 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    SimpleSearch-VL improves Qwen3-VL multimodal agent baselines by 15.8-16 points on average using 7K total training examples and reaches parity with Gemini-3-Pro on the 30B variant.

  34. Claw-R1: A Step-Level Data Middleware System for Agentic Reinforcement Learning

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Claw-R1 provides a Gateway Server and Data Pool to manage step-level agent interaction traces as structured data assets for agentic RL training.

  35. Deep Research Agents: A Systematic Examination And Roadmap

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey that organizes LLM-powered deep research agents into static versus dynamic workflows and single versus multi agent architectures, and reviews their benchmarks and open challenges.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 35 Pith papers

  1. [2]

    Taicheng Guo, Xiuying Chen, Yaqi Wang, Ruidi Chang, Shichao Pei, Nitesh V Chawla, Olaf Wiest, and Xiangliang Zhang

    URL https://gemini.google.com/app. Taicheng Guo, Xiuying Chen, Yaqi Wang, Ruidi Chang, Shichao Pei, Nitesh V Chawla, Olaf Wiest, and Xiangliang Zhang. Large language model based multi-agents: A survey of progress and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01680,

    arXiv

  2. [4]

    Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel S Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer

    URL https://jina.ai/. Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel S Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Triviaqa: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.03551,

    arXiv

  3. [6]

    Websailor: Navigating super-human reasoning for web agent

    Kuan Li, Zhongwang Zhang, Huifeng Yin, Liwen Zhang, Litu Ou, Jialong Wu, Wenbiao Yin, Baixuan Li, Zhengwei Tao, Xinyu Wang, et al. Websailor: Navigating super-human reasoning for web agent. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.02592, 2025a. Xiaoxi Li, Guanting Dong, Jiajie Jin, Yuyao Zhang, Yujia Zhou, Yutao Zhu, Peitian Zhang, and Zhicheng Dou. Search-o1: Agentic s...

    arXiv

  4. [8]

    Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models

    Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Y Wu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300,

    arXiv

  5. [9]

    Taskcraft: Automated generation of agentic tasks

    Dingfeng Shi, Jingyi Cao, Qianben Chen, Weichen Sun, Weizhen Li, Hongxuan Lu, Fangchen Dong, Tianrui Qin, King Zhu, Minghao Yang, et al. Taskcraft: Automated generation of agentic tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10055, 2025a. Wenxuan Shi, Haochen Tan, Chuqiao Kuang, Xiaoguang Li, Xiaozhe Ren, Chen Zhang, Hanting Chen, Yasheng Wang, Lifeng Shang, Fisher Y...

    arXiv

  6. [10]

    Simpledeepsearcher: Deep information seeking via web-powered reasoning trajectory synthesis

    Shuang Sun, Huatong Song, Yuhao Wang, Ruiyang Ren, Jinhao Jiang, Junjie Zhang, Fei Bai, Jia Deng, Wayne Xin Zhao, Zheng Liu, et al. Simpledeepsearcher: Deep information seeking via web-powered reasoning trajectory synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.16834,

    arXiv

  7. [11]

    Browsecomp: A simple yet challenging benchmark for browsing agents

    Jason Wei, Zhiqing Sun, Spencer Papay, Scott McKinney, Jeffrey Han, Isa Fulford, Hyung Won Chung, Alex Tachard Passos, William Fedus, and Amelia Glaese. Browsecomp: A simple yet challenging benchmark for browsing agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12516,

    arXiv

  8. [12]

    Webdancer: Towards autonomous information seeking agency.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.22648, 2025a

    Jialong Wu, Baixuan Li, Runnan Fang, Wenbiao Yin, Liwen Zhang, Zhengwei Tao, Dingchu Zhang, Zekun Xi, Yong Jiang, Pengjun Xie, et al. Webdancer: Towards autonomous information seeking agency.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.22648, 2025a. 17 Jialong Wu, Wenbiao Yin, Yong Jiang, Zhenglin Wang, Zekun Xi, Runnan Fang, Linhai Zhang, Yulan He, Deyu Zhou, Pengjun Xie, ...

    arXiv

Show all 19 references
  1. [13]

    Masksearch: A universal pre-training framework to enhance agentic search capability, 2025c

    Weiqi Wu, Xin Guan, Shen Huang, Yong Jiang, Pengjun Xie, Fei Huang, Jiuxin Cao, Hai Zhao, and Jingren Zhou. Masksearch: A universal pre-training framework to enhance agentic search capability, 2025c. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.20285. Tianle Xia, Liang Ding, Guojia Wan, Yib...

    arXiv

  2. [14]

    Deepseek-prover: Advancing theorem proving in llms through large-scale synthetic data

    Huajian Xin, Daya Guo, Zhihong Shao, Zhizhou Ren, Qihao Zhu, Bo Liu, Chong Ruan, Wenda Li, and Xiaodan Liang. Deepseek-prover: Advancing theorem proving in llms through large-scale synthetic data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14333,

    arXiv

  3. [15]

    Qwen2.5 technical report

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, et al. Qwen2.5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115,

    arXiv

  4. [16]

    Hotpotqa: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering

    Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William W Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D Manning. Hotpotqa: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.09600,

    arXiv

  5. [17]

    mPLUG-Owl: Modularization empowers large language models with multimodality

    Qinghao Ye, Haiyang Xu, Guohai Xu, Jiabo Ye, Ming Yan, Yiyang Zhou, Junyang Wang, Anwen Hu, Pengcheng Shi, Yaya Shi, et al. mPLUG-Owl: Modularization empowers large language models with multimodality. CoRR, abs/2304.14178,

    arXiv

  6. [18]

    Peilin Zhou, Bruce Leon, Xiang Ying, Can Zhang, Yifan Shao, Qichen Ye, Dading Chong, Zhiling Jin, Chenxuan Xie, Meng Cao, et al

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.22501. Peilin Zhou, Bruce Leon, Xiang Ying, Can Zhang, Yifan Shao, Qichen Ye, Dading Chong, Zhiling Jin, Chenxuan Xie, Meng Cao, et al. Browsecomp-zh: Benchmarking web browsing ability of large language models in chinese. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19314,

    arXiv

  7. [19]

    Strange Stories from a Chinese Studio

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.15741. 18 A Agent Details Following Wu et al. (2025a), WebComposer uses two tools, search and visit, which are regarded as fundamental to the information seeking process (Zhu et al., 2025): • Search interfaces with the Google search engine to ret...

    2025 arXiv

  8. [2019]

    Theorem prover as a judge for synthetic data generation

    Joshua Ong Jun Leang, Giwon Hong, Wenda Li, and Shay B Cohen. Theorem prover as a judge for synthetic data generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13137,

  9. [2023]

    Deepseek-prover-v2: Advancing formal mathematical reasoning via reinforcement learning for subgoal decomposition

    ZZ Ren, Zhihong Shao, Junxiao Song, Huajian Xin, Haocheng Wang, Wanjia Zhao, Liyue Zhang, Zhe Fu, Qihao Zhu, Dejian Yang, et al. Deepseek-prover-v2: Advancing formal mathematical reasoning via reinforcement learning for subgoal decomposition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21801,

    arXiv

  10. [2024]

    Search-r1: Training llms to reason and leverage search engines with reinforcement learning

    Bowen Jin, Hansi Zeng, Zhenrui Yue, Jinsung Yoon, Sercan Arik, Dong Wang, Hamed Zamani, and Jiawei Han. Search-r1: Training llms to reason and leverage search engines with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09516,

    arXiv

  11. [2025]

    Nurendra Choudhary and Chandan K Reddy

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.19470. Nurendra Choudhary and Chandan K Reddy. Complex logical reasoning over knowledge graphs using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01157,

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.