Do LLM Agents Know How to Ground, Recover, and Assess? A Benchmark for Epistemic Competence in Information-Seeking Agents

Recent work has explored training Large Language Model (LLM) search agents with reinforcement learning (RL) for open-domain question answering (QA). However, most evaluations focus solely on final answer accuracy, overlooking how these agents reason with and act on external evidence. We introduce SeekBench, the first benchmark for evaluating the \textit{epistemic competence} of LLM search agents through step-level analysis of their response traces. SeekBench comprises 190 expert-annotated traces with over 1,800 response steps generated by LLM search agents, each enriched with evidence annotations for granular analysis of whether agents (1) generate reasoning steps grounded in observed evidence, (2) adaptively reformulate searches to recover from low-quality results, and (3) have proper calibration to correctly assess whether the current evidence is sufficient for providing an answer.

Publication Details

Journal
ArXiv.org
Published
2025-09-26
Primary Topic
Plant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Do LLM Agents Know How to Ground, Recover, and Assess? A Benchmark for Epistemic Competence in Information-Seeking Agents

ArXiv.org
Plant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
article

Do LLM Agents Know How to Ground, Recover, and Assess? A Benchmark for Epistemic Competence in Information-Seeking Agents

article en

Abstract

Recent work has explored training Large Language Model (LLM) search agents with reinforcement learning (RL) for open-domain question answering (QA). However, most evaluations focus solely on final answer accuracy, overlooking how these agents reason with and act on external evidence. We introduce SeekBench, the first benchmark for evaluating the \textit{epistemic competence} of LLM search agents through step-level analysis of their response traces. SeekBench comprises 190 expert-annotated traces with over 1,800 response steps generated by LLM search agents, each enriched with evidence annotations for granular analysis of whether agents (1) generate reasoning steps grounded in observed evidence, (2) adaptively reformulate searches to recover from low-quality results, and (3) have proper calibration to correctly assess whether the current evidence is sufficient for providing an answer.

ArXiv.org
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 44%
Plant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Do LLM Agents Know How to Ground, Recover, and Assess? A Benchmark for Epistemic Competence in Information-Seeking Agents · ArXiv.org (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS