# Needle in the Web: A Benchmark for Retrieving Targeted Web Pages in the Wild

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.16553 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.16553/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 18 of its 96 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Dec 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 18 of 18)

- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.09600/) (2018)
- [Search-R1: Training LLMs to Reason and Leverage Search Engines with Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.09516/) (2025)
- [Constructing A Multi-hop QA Dataset for Comprehensive Evaluation of Reasoning Steps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.01060/) (2020)
- [MuSiQue: Multihop Questions via Single-hop Question Composition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.00573/) (2021)
- [BrowseComp: A Simple Yet Challenging Benchmark for Browsing Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.12516/) (2025)
- [LightRAG: Simple and Fast Retrieval-Augmented Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05779/) (2024)
- [BrowseComp-Plus: A More Fair and Transparent Evaluation Benchmark of Deep-Research Agent](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.06600/) (2025)
- [BrowseComp-ZH: Benchmarking Web Browsing Ability of Large Language Models in Chinese](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.19314/) (2025)
- [A Critical Evaluation of Evaluations for Long-form Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18201/) (2023)
- [WebGLM: Towards An Efficient Web-Enhanced Question Answering System with Human Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.07906/) (2023)
- [Sufficient Context: A New Lens on Retrieval Augmented Generation Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.06037/) (2024)
- [AutoAgent: A Fully-Automated and Zero-Code Framework for LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.05957/) (2025)
- [Cognitive Kernel-Pro: A Framework for Deep Research Agents and Agent Foundation Models Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.00414/) (2025)
- [From Language to Action: A Review of Large Language Models as Autonomous Agents and Tool Users](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.17281/) (2025)
- [Reasoning Isn't Enough: Examining Truth-Bias and Sycophancy in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.21561/) (2025)
- [Fact-checking AI-generated news reports: Can LLMs catch their own lies?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18293/) (2025)
- [Unexplored Frontiers: A Review of Empirical Studies of Exploratory Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.13695/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) have evolved from simple chatbots into sophisticated agents capable of automating complex real-world tasks, where browsing and reasoning over live web content is key to assessing retrieval and cognitive skills. Existing benchmarks like BrowseComp and xBench-DeepSearch emphasize complex reasoning searches requiring multi-hop synthesis but neglect Fuzzy Exploratory Search, namely queries that are vague and multifaceted, where users seek the most relevant webpage rather than a single factual answer. To address this gap, we introduce Needle in the Web, a novel benchmark specifically designed to evaluate modern search agents and LLM-based systems on their ability to retrieve and reason over real-world web content in response to ambiguous, exploratory queries under varying levels of difficulty. Needle in the Web comprises 663 questions spanning seven distinct domains. To ensure high query quality and answer uniqueness, we employ a flexible methodology that reliably generates queries of controllable difficulty based on factual claims of web contents. We benchmark three leading LLMs and three agent-based search systems on Needle in the Web, finding that most models struggle: many achieve below 35% accuracy, and none consistently excel across domains or difficulty levels. These findings reveal that Needle in the Web presents a significant challenge for current search systems and highlights the open problem of effective fuzzy retrieval under semantic ambiguity.