Evaluates LLMs on complex, multi-step reasoning and agentic search tasks, including single-hop and multi-hop question answering as well as deep research benchmarks requiring web search and synthesis. Use when the user wants to benchmark on NQ, TQA, PopQA, HQA, 2Wiki, MSQ, Bamb, BrowseComp-Plus, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Accuracy.
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Infoseek Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-infoseek-eval)
---
name: infoseek-eval
description: Evaluates LLMs on complex, multi-step reasoning and agentic search tasks, including single-hop and multi-hop question answering as well as deep research benchmarks requiring web search and synthesis. Use when the user wants to benchmark on NQ, TQA, PopQA, HQA, 2Wiki, MSQ, Bamb, BrowseComp-Plus, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Accuracy.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2509.00375
bibtex_key: xia2025opendata
confidence: medium
---
# infoseek-eval
> Open Data Synthesis For Deep Research — Xia et al. (arXiv:2509.00375, 2025)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates LLMs on complex, multi-step reasoning and agentic search tasks, including single-hop and multi-hop question answering as well as deep research benchmarks requiring web search and synthesis.
## Datasets
- **NQ** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **TQA** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **PopQA** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **HQA** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **2Wiki** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **MSQ** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **Bamb** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **BrowseComp-Plus** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `Accuracy` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Percentage of instances where the model's final extracted answer matches the ground truth.
- `Search Calls` — range: other
- Average number of search engine invocations per task instance.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Question or research task prompt requiring multi-step reasoning and web search.
**Output**: Model generates responses enclosed in specific tags: <think> for reasoning, <search> for queries, <information> for retrieved summaries, and <answer> for the final response.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_metrics(predictions, gold):
correct = 0
search_calls = 0
for pred, gold_ans in zip(predictions, gold):
extracted = extract_tag(pred, 'answer')
if exact_match(extracted, gold_ans):
correct += 1
search_calls += count_tag(pred, 'search')
return {'Accuracy': correct / len(predictions) * 100, 'Search Calls': search_calls / len(predictions)}
```
## Common pitfalls
- Models must strictly follow the XML-like tag structure (<think>, <search>, <answer>); failure to do so breaks answer extraction.
- High Accuracy does not imply efficient search usage; Search Calls are reported separately and can vary significantly across models.
- Benchmarks like BrowseComp-Plus involve noisy web results, where models often lose focus or hallucinate without proper intermediate summarization.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Table 4: Model performance on the BrowseComp-Plus benchmark for complex reasoning tasks.
| Model | Retriever | Accuracy (%) | Search Calls |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| InfoSeeker-3B | BM25 | $16.5$ | $8.24$ |
R = 1 if format and extracted answer are both correct, 0 otherwise
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{xia2025opendata,
title={Open Data Synthesis For Deep Research},
author={Xia et al.},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2509.00375}
}
```
- arXiv: 2509.00375