Recent advances in Deep Research Agents (DRAs) are transforming automated knowledge discovery and problem-solving.While the majority of existing efforts focus on enhancing policy capabilities via post-training, we propose an alternative paradigm: test-time self-evolving the agent’s ability by iteratively verifying the policy model’s outputs, guided by meticulously crafted rubrics. This approach gives rise to an inference-time scaling of verification, wherein an agent self-improves at test time by evaluating its generated answers to produce iterative feedback and refinements without any additional training. We derive the rubrics based on an automatically constructed DRA Failure Taxonomy, which systematically classifies agent failures into five major categories and thirteen sub-categories. We present DeepVerifier, a rubrics-based outcome reward verifier that leverages the asymmetry of verification and outperforms vanilla agent-as-judge and LLM judge baselines by 12%–48% in meta-evaluation F1 score. To enable practical test-time self-evolution, DeepVerifier integrates as a plug-and-play module during test-time inference. The verifier produces detailed rubric-based feedback, which is fed back to the agent for iterative bootstrapping—refining responses without additional training. This test-time scaling delivers 8%–11% accuracy gains on challenging subsets of GAIA and XBench-DeepResearch when powered by capable closed-source LLMs. Finally, to support open-source advancement, we release DeepVerifier-4K, a curated supervised fine-tuning dataset of 4,646 high-quality agent steps focused on DRA verification. These examples emphasize reflection and self-critique, enabling open models to develop robust verification capabilities.

The surge of large language models (LLMs) has revolutionized the extraction and analysis of crucial information from a growing volume of financial statements, announcements, and business news. Recognition for named entities to construct structured data poses a significant challenge in analyzing financial documents and is a foundational task for intelligent financial analytics. However, how effective are these generic LLMs and their performance under various prompts are yet need a better understanding. To fill in the blank, we present a systematic evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs and prompting methods in the financial Named Entity Recognition (NER) problem. Specifically, our experimental results highlight their strengths and limitations, identify five representative failure types, and provide insights into their potential and challenges for domain-specific tasks.

We propose a new commonsense reasoning benchmark to motivate commonsense reasoning progress from two perspectives: (1) Evaluating whether models can distinguish knowledge quality by predicting if the knowledge is enough to answer the question; (2) Evaluating whether models can develop commonsense inference capabilities that generalize across tasks. We first extract supporting knowledge for each question and ask humans to annotate whether the auto-extracted knowledge is enough to answer the question or not. After that, we convert different tasks into a unified question-answering format to evaluate the models’ generalization capabilities. We name the benchmark Commonsense Inference with Knowledge-in-the-loop Question Answering (\name). Experiments show that with our learning paradigm, models demonstrate encouraging generalization capabilities. At the same time, we also notice that distinguishing knowledge quality remains challenging for current commonsense reasoning models.