DETOUR: An Interactive Benchmark for Dual-Agent Search and Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.00352v1
• Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 22:01:30 GMT
• Title: DETOUR: An Interactive Benchmark for Dual-Agent Search and Reasoning
• Abstract summary: We introduce Dual-agent based Evaluation Through Obscure Under-specified Retrieval (DETOUR), a dual-agent evaluation benchmark containing 1,011 prompts.<n>Our results indicate that current state-of-the-art models still struggle with our benchmark, only achieving 36% accuracy when evaluated on all modalities.
• Score: 2.0329381271887255
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: When recalling information in conversation, people often arrive at the recollection after multiple turns. However, existing benchmarks for evaluating agent capabilities in such tip-of-the-tongue search processes are restricted to single-turn settings. To more realistically simulate tip-of-the-tongue search, we introduce Dual-agent based Evaluation Through Obscure Under-specified Retrieval (DETOUR), a dual-agent evaluation benchmark containing 1,011 prompts. The benchmark design involves a Primary Agent, which is the subject of evaluation, tasked with identifying the recollected entity through querying a Memory Agent that is held consistent across evaluations. Our results indicate that current state-of-the-art models still struggle with our benchmark, only achieving 36% accuracy when evaluated on all modalities (text, image, audio, and video), highlighting the importance of enhancing capabilities in underspecified scenarios.

Related papers

• Open Evaluation Agent: Efficient and Promptable Evaluation of Visual Generative Models [74.1961755473754]
  Existing evaluation methods rely on rigid pipelines that overlook specific user needs and provide numerical results without clear explanations.<n>We propose the Evaluation Agent framework, which employs human-like strategies for efficient, dynamic, multi-round evaluations.<n>We show that Evaluation Agent reduces evaluation time to 10% of traditional methods while delivering comparable results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-10T14:42:10Z)
• What Current AI Benchmarks Leave Unmeasured: Modality, Search, Citations, and Implications (for Safety Evaluations) [1.0499611180329804]
  We compare two modalities, ChatGPT's chat UI and OpenAI's API, with and without web search enabled.<n>For instance, chat UI responses were less accurate than API responses on both benchmarks with search disabled.<n>We argue that AI safety evaluations should systematically account for modality, multi-run consistency, search conditions, and response-level behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-06T15:58:32Z)
• PACE: A Proxy for Agentic Capability Evaluation [60.3743414796937]
  We introduce PACE, a framework that constructs proxy benchmarks by selecting instances from existing non-agentic evaluations.<n>Experiments across 14 models, 4 agentic benchmarks, and 19 non-agentic benchmarks show that PACE-Bench predicts agentic scores with leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) mean absolute error (MAE) under 4%, Spearman correlation above 0.80, and pairwise model-ranking accuracy around 85%, all at much less than 1% of the full agentic evaluation cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-02T10:59:03Z)
• SkillHone: A Harness for Continual Agent Skill Evolution Through Persistent Decision History [4.682850246574405]
  SkillHone is a harness for continual agent skill evolution grounded in persistent decision history.<n> SkillHone pairs skill revisions with evaluation-side evidence that supplies practice feedback.<n>We evaluate SkillHone on deep-research benchmarks in a raw open-web setting, where agents are not given an integrated search stack.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-07T15:21:08Z)
• A Sanity Check on Composed Image Retrieval [91.95275287747499]
  Composed Image Retrieval (CIR) aims to retrieve a target image based on a query composed of a reference image, and a relative caption that specifies the desired modification.<n>We introduce FISD, a Fully-Informed Semantically-Diverse benchmark, which employs generative models to precisely control the variables of reference-target image pairs.<n>We propose an automatic multi-round agentic evaluation framework to probe the potential of the existing models in the interactive scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T15:52:22Z)
• GISA: A Benchmark for General Information-Seeking Assistant [102.30831921333755]
  GISA is a benchmark for General Information-Seeking Assistants comprising 373 human-crafted queries.<n>It integrates both deep reasoning and broad information aggregation within unified tasks, and includes a live subset with periodically updated answers to resist memorization.<n>Experiments on mainstream LLMs and commercial search products reveal that even the best-performing model achieves only 19.30% exact match score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T11:44:15Z)
• Issue-Oriented Agent-Based Framework for Automated Review Comment Generation [15.04868140672973]
  RevAgent is a novel agent-based issue-oriented framework for code review comments.<n>It decomposes the task into three stages: Generation, Discrimination, and Training.<n>It significantly outperforms state-of-the-art PLM- and LLM-based baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-01T11:44:11Z)
• Holistic Agent Leaderboard: The Missing Infrastructure for AI Agent Evaluation [87.47155146067962]
  We provide a standardized evaluation harness that orchestrates parallel evaluations across hundreds of tasks.<n>We conduct three-dimensional analysis spanning models, scaffolds, and benchmarks.<n>Our analysis reveals surprising insights, such as higher reasoning effort reducing accuracy in the majority of runs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T22:22:28Z)
• Visual Document Understanding and Question Answering: A Multi-Agent Collaboration Framework with Test-Time Scaling [83.78874399606379]
  We propose MACT, a Multi-Agent Collaboration framework with Test-Time scaling.<n>It comprises four distinct small-scale agents, with clearly defined roles and effective collaboration.<n>It shows superior performance with a smaller parameter scale without sacrificing the ability of general and mathematical tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T12:52:09Z)
• RAVine: Reality-Aligned Evaluation for Agentic Search [7.4420114967110385]
  RAVine is a Reality-Aligned eValuation framework for agentic LLMs with search.<n> RAVine targets multi-point queries and long-form answers that better reflect user intents.<n>We benchmark a series of models using RAVine and derive several insights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T16:08:12Z)
• Establishing Best Practices for Building Rigorous Agentic Benchmarks [94.69724201080155]
  We show that many agentic benchmarks have issues in task setup or reward design.<n>Such issues can lead to under- or overestimation of agents' performance by up to 100% in relative terms.<n>We introduce the Agentic Benchmark Checklist (ABC), a set of guidelines that we synthesized from our benchmark-building experience.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T17:35:31Z)
• Multi-Modal Language Models as Text-to-Image Model Evaluators [16.675735328424786]
  Multimodal Text-to-Image Eval (MT2IE) is an evaluation framework that iteratively generates prompts for evaluation.<n>We show that MT2IE's prompt-generation consistency scores have higher correlation with human judgment than scores previously introduced in the literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-01T17:47:55Z)
• JudgeRank: Leveraging Large Language Models for Reasoning-Intensive Reranking [81.88787401178378]
  We introduce JudgeRank, a novel agentic reranker that emulates human cognitive processes when assessing document relevance. We evaluate JudgeRank on the reasoning-intensive BRIGHT benchmark, demonstrating substantial performance improvements over first-stage retrieval methods. In addition, JudgeRank performs on par with fine-tuned state-of-the-art rerankers on the popular BEIR benchmark, validating its zero-shot generalization capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T18:43:12Z)
• BenchAgents: Multi-Agent Systems for Structured Benchmark Creation [23.653678381444276]
  BenchAgents is a framework that automates the creation of evaluation benchmarks.<n>We use BenchAgents to create benchmarks to evaluate capabilities related to planning, constraint satisfaction, and causal reasoning.<n>We then use these benchmarks to study state-of-the-art models and extract new insights into common failure modes and model differences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T22:56:18Z)
• TestAgent: Automatic Benchmarking and Exploratory Interaction for Evaluating LLMs in Vertical Domains [19.492393243160244]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in highly specialized vertical domains.<n>Existing evaluations for vertical domains typically rely on the labor-intensive construction of static single-turn datasets.<n>We propose TestAgent, a framework for automatic benchmarking and exploratory dynamic evaluation in vertical domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T11:20:42Z)
• Evaluating and Improving Factuality in Multimodal Abstractive Summarization [91.46015013816083]
  We propose CLIPBERTScore to leverage the robustness and strong factuality detection performance between image-summary and document-summary. We show that this simple combination of two metrics in the zero-shot achieves higher correlations than existing factuality metrics for document summarization. Our analysis demonstrates the robustness and high correlation of CLIPBERTScore and its components on four factuality metric-evaluation benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-04T16:50:40Z)
• Incorporating Relevance Feedback for Information-Seeking Retrieval using Few-Shot Document Re-Ranking [56.80065604034095]
  We introduce a kNN approach that re-ranks documents based on their similarity with the query and the documents the user considers relevant. To evaluate our different integration strategies, we transform four existing information retrieval datasets into the relevance feedback scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-19T16:19:37Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.