# SGR-Bench: Benchmarking Search Agents on State-Gated Retrieval

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.22219 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.22219/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Web, search, and research agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 18 of its 31 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 May 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Web, search, and research agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/web-search-and-research-agents/)

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

- [TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.03551/) (2017)
- [WebShop: Towards Scalable Real-World Web Interaction with Grounded Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.01206/) (2022)
- [Mind2Web: Towards a Generalist Agent for the Web](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.06070/) (2023)
- [GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12983/) (2023)
- [BrowseComp: A Simple Yet Challenging Benchmark for Browsing Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.12516/) (2025)
- [KILT: a Benchmark for Knowledge Intensive Language Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.02252/) (2020)
- [WebVoyager: Building an End-to-End Web Agent with Large Multimodal Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.13919/) (2024)
- [WorkArena: How Capable Are Web Agents at Solving Common Knowledge Work Tasks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07718/) (2024)
- [FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03214/) (2023)
- [WebLINX: Real-World Website Navigation with Multi-Turn Dialogue](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.05930/) (2024)
- [AssistantBench: Can Web Agents Solve Realistic and Time-Consuming Tasks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.15711/) (2024)
- [SafeArena: Evaluating the Safety of Autonomous Web Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.04957/) (2025)
- [WorkArena++: Towards Compositional Planning and Reasoning-based Common Knowledge Work Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.05291/) (2024)
- [WideSearch: Benchmarking Agentic Broad Info-Seeking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.07999/) (2025)
- [DeepSearchQA: Bridging the Comprehensiveness Gap for Deep Research Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.20975/) (2026)
- [REAL: Benchmarking Autonomous Agents on Deterministic Simulations of Real Websites](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.11543/) (2025)
- [DeepResearch Bench II: Diagnosing Deep Research Agents via Rubrics from Expert Reports](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.08536/) (2026)
- [DeepWideSearch: Benchmarking Depth and Width in Agentic Information Seeking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.20168/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Recent advances in large language models and tool-using agents have expanded the range of benchmarked web tasks. Yet an important class of specialized retrieval tasks remains undercharacterized. On many specialized data-retrieval websites, answer-bearing evidence becomes accessible only after establishing the correct site-specific retrieval state through filters, views, hierarchies, or scopes. We term this capability state-gated retrieval (SGR). We introduce SGR-Bench, a benchmark for this setting containing 100 expert-curated tasks spanning six source families and 12 public data ecosystems. Each task requires discovering the appropriate website and configuring its site-specific retrieval state to produce a structured answer. SGR-Bench pairs constraint-guided and goal-oriented formulations of the same underlying problems, enabling controlled comparisons between explicit and implicit guidance for state-gated retrieval. We evaluate eight CLI-based agentic LLM systems and three commercial search-agent products. On SGR-Bench, the strongest system reaches only 66.18% item-level F1, while row-level F1 remains much lower. A manual audit of 156 analyzable failed CLI trajectories shows why: agents often reach a relevant web source, but establish the wrong site-specific retrieval state. Retrieval-scope drift (37.2%) and criterion mismatch (27.6%) dominate, whereas final answer composition accounts for only 10.3%. The dataset and single-case evaluation instructions are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/PKUAIWeb/SGR-BENCH.