Revisiting Text Ranking in Deep Research
Deep research has emerged as an important task that aims to address hard queries through extensive open-web exploration. To tackle it, most prior work equips large language model (LLM)-based agents with opaque web search APIs, enabling agents to iteratively issue search queries, retrieve external evidence, and reason over it. Despite search's essential role in deep research, black-box web search APIs hinder systematic analysis of search components, leaving the behaviour of established text ranking methods in deep research largely unclear. To fill this gap, we reproduce a selection of key findings and best practices for IR text ranking methods in the deep research setting. In particular, we examine their effectiveness from three perspectives: (i) retrieval units (documents vs. passages), (ii) pipeline configurations (different retrievers, re-rankers, and re-ranking depths), and (iii) query characteristics (the mismatch between agent-issued queries and the training queries of text rankers). We perform experiments on BrowseComp-Plus, a deep research dataset with a fixed corpus, evaluating 2 open-source agents, 5 retrievers, and 3 re-rankers across diverse setups. We find that agent-issued queries typically follow web-search-style syntax (e.g., quoted exact matches), favouring lexical, learned sparse, and multi-vector retrievers; passage-level units are more efficient under limited context windows, and avoid the difficulties of document length normalisation in lexical retrieval; re-ranking is highly effective; translating agent-issued queries into natural-language questions significantly bridges the query mismatch.
69a04708fe0f78cfa89ffc5b
Chuan Meng
claimed_verified
2026-02-27T16:42:48.465Z
63e0cc06af523c37e5a5f574
/avatars/352b8854d5ddcd3ad0a2c72a72d6526c.svg
Chuan Meng
ChuanMeng
user
ChuanMeng
69a04708fe0f78cfa89ffc5c
Litu Ou
69a04708fe0f78cfa89ffc5d
Sean MacAvaney
69a04708fe0f78cfa89ffc5e
Jeff Dalton
Revisiting Text Ranking in Deep Research
Deep research has emerged as an important task that aims to address hard queries through extensive open-web exploration. To tackle it, most prior work equips large language model (LLM)-based agents with opaque web search APIs, enabling agents to iteratively issue search queries, retrieve external evidence, and reason over it. Despite search's essential role in deep research, black-box web search APIs hinder systematic analysis of search components, leaving the behaviour of established text ranking methods in deep research largely unclear. To fill this gap, we reproduce a selection of key findings and best practices for IR text ranking methods in the deep research setting. In particular, we examine their effectiveness from three perspectives: (i) retrieval units (documents vs. passages), (ii) pipeline configurations (different retrievers, re-rankers, and re-ranking depths), and (iii) query characteristics (the mismatch between agent-issued queries and the training queries of text rankers). We perform experiments on BrowseComp-Plus, a deep research dataset with a fixed corpus, evaluating 2 open-source agents, 5 retrievers, and 3 re-rankers across diverse setups. We find that agent-issued queries typically follow web-search-style syntax (e.g., quoted exact matches), favouring lexical, learned sparse, and multi-vector retrievers; passage-level units are more efficient under limited context windows, and avoid the difficulties of document length normalisation in lexical retrieval; re-ranking is highly effective; translating agent-issued queries into natural-language questions significantly bridges the query mismatch.
Research on deep research tasks reveals that web search APIs' opacity hinders understanding of text ranking methods, which are evaluated across retrieval units, pipeline configurations, and query characteristics using a fixed-corpus dataset with multiple agents, retrievers, and re-rankers.
large language model web search APIs iterative search queries external evidence text ranking methods retrieval units pipeline configurations retrievers re-rankers query characteristics BrowseComp-Plus lexical retrieval multi-vector retrievers passage-level units document length normalization re-ranking agent-issued queries natural-language questions