DRACULA: Hunting for the Actions Users Want Deep Research Agents to Execute
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Web, search, and research agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Scientific Deep Research (DR) agents answer user queries by synthesizing research papers into multi-section reports. User feedback can improve their utility, but existing protocols only score the final report, making it hard to study and learn which intermediate actions DR agents should take to improve reports. We collect DRACULA, the first dataset with user feedback on intermediate actions for DR. Over five weeks, nineteen expert CS researchers ask queries to a DR system that proposes actions (e.g., "Add a section on datasets"). Our users select actions they prefer, then judge whether an output report applied their selections successfully, yielding 8,103 action preferences and 5,230 execution judgments. After confirming a DR agent can execute DRACULA's actions, we study the predictability of user-preferred actions via simulation-how well LLMs predict the actions users select-a step toward learning to generate useful actions. We discover: (1) LLM judges initially struggle to predict action selections, but improve most when using a user's full selection history, rather than self-reported or extrapolated user context signals; (2) Users' selections for the same query differ based on unstated goals, bottlenecking simulation and motivating affordances that let users steer reports; and (3) Our simulation results inform an online intervention that generates new actions based on the user's past interactions, which users pick most often in follow-up studies. Overall, while work extensively studies execution, DRACULA reveals a key challenge is deciding which actions to execute in the first place. We open-source DRACULA's study design, user feedback, and simulation tasks to spur future work on action feedback for long-horizon agents.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Web, search, and research agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 33 of its 93 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Apr 2026.
Builds on
33 of 93 references.
Closest ancestors · 9
Same direction, newest first
- 2026InterDeepResearch: Enabling Human-Agent Collaborative Information Seeking through Interactive Deep Research13 Mar
- 2026DualSpec: Accelerating Deep Research Agents via Dual-Process Action Speculation8 Mar
- 2026DeepResearch Bench II: Diagnosing Deep Research Agents via Rubrics from Expert Reports13 Jan
- 2025DR Tulu: Reinforcement Learning with Evolving Rubrics for Deep Research24 Nov
- 2025ResearchRubrics: A Benchmark of Prompts and Rubrics For Evaluating Deep Research Agents10 Nov
- 2025Tongyi DeepResearch Technical Report28 Oct
- 2025LiveResearchBench: A Live Benchmark for User-Centric Deep Research in the Wild16 Oct
- 2025Towards Personalized Deep Research: Benchmarks and Evaluations29 Sep
- 2023PaperQA: Retrieval-Augmented Generative Agent for Scientific Research8 Dec
Other references · 24
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
- 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,330
- 2025Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilitiescited by 3,796
- 2024Tulu 3: Pushing Frontiers in Open Language Model Post-Trainingcited by 1,053
- 2025OpenAI GPT-5 System Cardcited by 989
- 2024DeepSeek-V3 Technical Reportcited by 811
- 2025BrowseComp: A Simple Yet Challenging Benchmark for Browsing Agentscited by 647
- 2018Generating Wikipedia by Summarizing Long Sequencescited by 335
- 2025CollabLLM: From Passive Responders to Active Collaboratorscited by 124
- 2026Mind the Sim2Real Gap in User Simulation for Agentic Taskscited by 54
12 more
- 2026RubricHub: A Comprehensive and Highly Discriminative Rubric Dataset via Automated Coarse-to-Fine Generationcited by 52
- 2025SurveyForge: On the Outline Heuristics, Memory-Driven Generation, and Multi-dimensional Evaluation for Automated Survey Writingcited by 49
- 2025Search Arena: Analyzing Search-Augmented LLMscited by 34
- 2025SciArena: An Open Evaluation Platform for Non-Verifiable Scientific Literature-Grounded Taskscited by 20
- 2026Learning Query-Specific Rubrics from Human Preferences for DeepResearch Report Generationcited by 18
- 2023Towards Asking Clarification Questions for Information Seeking on Task-Oriented Dialoguescited by 7
- 2025Asking Clarifying Questions for Preference Elicitation With Large Language Modelscited by 7
- 2026Learning Next Action Predictors from Human-Computer Interactioncited by 7
- 2026Deep Research, Shallow Evaluation: A Case Study in Meta-Evaluation for Long-Form QA Benchmarkscited by 5
- 2025LiteraryTaste: A Preference Dataset for Creative Writing Personalizationcited by 4
- 2026Understanding Usage and Engagement in AI-Powered Scientific Research Tools: The Asta Interaction Datasetcited by 2
- 2026Language Models Don't Know What You Want: Evaluating Personalization in Deep Research Needs Real Userscited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Multi-Turn Evaluation of Deep Research Agents Under Process-Level Feedback
- 2026AgentDisCo: Towards Disentanglement and Collaboration in Open-ended Deep Research Agents
- 2026IDRBench: Benchmarking the Interactive Capabilities of Deep Research Agents
- 2025Deep Research Bench: Evaluating AI Web Research Agents
- 2025Deep Research Comparator: A Platform For Fine-grained Human Annotations of Deep Research Agents
- 2025DeepResearch Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Deep Research Agents
- 2026From Inertia to Objectivity: Improving Deep Research Agents with Noise Isolation
- 2025Deep Research: A Survey of Autonomous Research Agents