LifeSearch: Benchmarking Deep Research Agents for Real-World Life and Productivity
AuthorsYibo Wang, Senjie Jin, Yansong Ning, Xinbing Liang, Haotian Luo, Jiazheng Zhang, Yuxuan He, Will Wu, Clarenceai
AffiliationsJiazheng Zhang, Yuxuan HE, Will WU, Clarenceai · LLM Department, Tencent
LifeSearch tests how well deep-research agents handle everyday and professional questions—and finds that even top systems still have substantial room to improve.
Key results
Bilingual real-world life and productivity tasks in the benchmark.
Fine-grained criteria for evaluating reports.
The benchmark required more than this many annotation hours.
Highest score among the 12 evaluated deep-research agents.
Mean accuracy against human rubric labels.
Spearman correlation between benchmark rankings and human judgments.
What the paper found
LifeSearch introduces a benchmark for testing whether deep-research agents can handle practical questions in everyday life and professional work, rather than only academic or synthetic tasks. It contains 203 bilingual tasks across seven domains, scored with 4,014 expert-written rubrics that check coverage, factual accuracy, sources, dates, and precise values. Building the benchmark required more than 4,500 hours of human annotation. In tests of 12 agents using a shared ReAct-style search harness, OpenAI’s GPT-5.6 Sol led with 63.4%, while Anthropic’s Claude Opus 5 scored 56.1%; the results show substantial room for improvement. More output did not guarantee better answers: Claude Opus 5 and GLM-5.3 generated similar token volumes but differed by 6.9 percentage points. For grading, the researchers selected Google’s Gemini 3.1 Pro, which achieved 84.25% mean accuracy against human rubric labels. Aggregate benchmark rankings also aligned strongly with human judgments, with Spearman’s ρ of 0.89. The study identifies recurring failures including premature clarification, use of evidence outside the requested time window, and omission of specific requirements.
Original abstract
Deep research (DR) agents address open-ended information needs through multi-step reasoning, long-horizon web search, and evidence synthesis. However, existing benchmarks primarily focus on academic research or synthetic tasks, leaving DR agents' capabilities in real-world life and professional productivity settings insufficiently evaluated. To bridge this gap, we introduce LifeSearch, a challenging benchmark comprising 203 Chinese and English tasks derived from real-user query seeds across 7 concrete life and productivity domains. With more than 4,500 hours of human annotation, we construct over 4,000 expert-written, fine-grained rubrics, covering both report-content criteria for coverage and accuracy and concrete criteria specifying values, units, dates, and URLs. We conduct extensive experiments on 12 advanced DR agents under a unified evaluation harness, systematically analyzing their performance patterns and failure modes. We find that even the best-performing frontier agent, GPT-5.6 Sol, achieves a score of only 63.4%, leaving substantial room for improvement on realistic life and professional DR tasks. We select the grading configuration by comparing candidate LLM judges against human rubric labels, and a human ranking study shows strong alignment between aggregate benchmark scores and human judgments (Spearman's $ρ= 0.89$, Kendall's $τ= 0.81$). LifeSearch provides a rigorous evaluation framework and foundation for advancing DR agents toward real-world life and productivity.
Read the original paperMore in AI Benchmarks
Browse all 51 papers →HandsOn: A Large-Scale Simulation Benchmark for Generalizable Dexterous Manipulation
Tianwei Luo, Yiming He, Hongjin Wu, Ting Pan, Debin Ren, Haorui Guo, Junlin Yang, Yuxin Zuo, Zhehao Kou, Kaisen Yang, Zhuoqun Lai, Yi Ding, Jiale Yu, Yuchen Zhang, Zijie Qiu, Haozhan Li, Ning Ding
HandsOn is a large benchmark for testing whether dexterous robots can generalize manipulation skills across hands, objects, and tasks.
Last Secure Code Benchmark: Is the Code You Vibe Secure?
Tianyi Wu, Chao Ge, Peng Chen, Fengji Zhang, Yongxing Wu, Yuchong Xie, Jian Li, Chaoyuan Peng, Kaikai Zhang, Dong Huang, Mingzhe Du, Yukai Huang, Jiaheng Zhang, Terry Yue Zhuo, See-Kiong Ng
A new benchmark finds that coding agents often produce functional code that still fails to protect against real vulnerabilities.
FrontierCS 2: A Benchmark for Computer Science R&D
Qiuyang Mang, Wenhao Chai, Runyuan He, Dongruixuan Li, Zihan Zheng, Yujun He, Xuanyi Zhou, Hao Wang, Siddhant Ray, Bo Peng, Ruyi Ji, Shuo Yang, Haocheng Xi, Boru Chen, Xinyang David Han, Melissa Pan, Mayank Mishra, Boxi Yu, Sijia Liu, Kerem Akillioglu, Yi Pan, Zirui Wang, Mert Cemri, Diogo Antunes, Yichuan Wang, Aiwei Ivy Zhang, Zhenyang Chen, Qizheng Zhang, Kaiyuan Liu, Wenyuan Huang, Sherry Ruan, Shu Liu, Dacheng Li, Zerui Cheng, Zeyu Shen, Shang Zhou, Hanfei Chen, Yuzhong Zhang, Bohan Lyu, Qu Ao, Han Zheng, Chonghe Jiang, Jingzhuo Hu, Xiaokun Chen, Kunjun Li, Zhiqing Zhong, Haoye Tian, Tong Zhao, Yunzhong He, Hanchen Li, Ofir Press, Jiantao Jiao, Kunle Olukotun, Karthik R. Narasimhan, Jingbo Shang, Koushik Sen, Matei Zaharia, Alex Dimakis, Ion Stoica, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Alvin Cheung
FrontierCS 2 tests whether AI agents can improve real research codebases across a wide range of computer science tasks.