# LifeSearch: Benchmarking Deep Research Agents for Real-World Life and Productivity

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.18092 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.18092/

## 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 19 of its 26 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 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, 19 of 19)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13854/) (2023)
- [Search-R1: Training LLMs to Reason and Leverage Search Engines with Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.09516/) (2025)
- [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)
- [DeepResearch Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Deep Research Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.11763/) (2025)
- [AssistantBench: Can Web Agents Solve Realistic and Time-Consuming Tasks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.15711/) (2024)
- [ResearchRubrics: A Benchmark of Prompts and Rubrics For Evaluating Deep Research Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.07685/) (2025)
- [Mind2Web 2: Evaluating Agentic Search with Agent-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.21506/) (2025)
- [WideSearch: Benchmarking Agentic Broad Info-Seeking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.07999/) (2025)
- [Deep Research: A Survey of Autonomous Research Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.12752/) (2025)
- [ReportBench: Evaluating Deep Research Agents via Academic Survey Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.15804/) (2025)
- [LiveResearchBench: A Live Benchmark for User-Centric Deep Research in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.14240/) (2025)
- [MedBrowseComp: Benchmarking Medical Deep Research and Computer Use](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.14963/) (2025)
- [Code Researcher: Deep Research Agent for Large Systems Code and Commit History](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.11060/) (2025)
- [FinDeepResearch: Evaluating Deep Research Agents in Rigorous Financial Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.13936/) (2025)
- [DeepResearchEval: An Automated Framework for Deep Research Task Construction and Agentic Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.09688/) (2026)
- [DRACO: a Cross-Domain Benchmark for Deep Research Accuracy, Completeness, and Objectivity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.11685/) (2026)
- [Can LLM-as-a-Judge Reliably Verify Rubrics in Agentic Scenarios?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.29920/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Deep research (DR) agents address open-ended information needs through multi-step reasoning, long-horizon web search, and evidence synthesis. However, existing benchmarks primarily focus on academic research or synthetic tasks, leaving DR agents' capabilities in real-world life and professional productivity settings insufficiently evaluated. To bridge this gap, we introduce LifeSearch, a challenging benchmark comprising 203 Chinese and English tasks derived from real-user query seeds across 7 concrete life and productivity domains. With more than 4,500 hours of human annotation, we construct over 4,000 expert-written, fine-grained rubrics, covering both report-content criteria for coverage and accuracy and concrete criteria specifying values, units, dates, and URLs. We conduct extensive experiments on 12 advanced DR agents under a unified evaluation harness, systematically analyzing their performance patterns and failure modes. We find that even the best-performing frontier agent, GPT-5.6 Sol, achieves a score of only 63.4%, leaving substantial room for improvement on realistic life and professional DR tasks. We select the grading configuration by comparing candidate LLM judges against human rubric labels, and a human ranking study shows strong alignment between aggregate benchmark scores and human judgments (Spearman's ρ = 0.89, Kendall's τ = 0.81). LifeSearch provides a rigorous evaluation framework and foundation for advancing DR agents toward real-world life and productivity.