We present a new benchmark for evaluating Deep Search—a realistic and complex form of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) that requires source-aware, multi-hop reasoning over diverse, sparsed, but related sources. These include documents, meeting transcripts, Slack messages, GitHub, and URLs, which vary in structure and often contain human-to-human interactions. We build it using a synthetic data pipeline that simulates business workflows across product planning, development, and support stages, generating interconnected content with realistic noise and multi-hop questions with guaranteed ground-truth answers. We release our benchmark with both answerable and unanswerable queries, and retrieval pool of 39,190 enterprise artifacts, enabling fine-grained evaluation of long-context LLM and RAG systems. Our experiments reveal that even the best-performing agentic RAG methods achieve an average performance score of 32.96 on our benchmark. With further analysis, we highlight retrieval as the main bottleneck: existing methods struggle to conduct deep searches and retrieve all necessary evidence. Consequently, they often reason over partial context, leading to significant performance degradation.

Automated service agents require well-structured workflows to deliver consistent and accurate responses to customer queries. However, such workflows are often undocumented, and their automatic extraction from conversations remains largely unexplored. In this work, we present a novel framework for extracting and evaluating dialog workflows from historical interactions. Our extraction process involves two key stages: (1) a retrieval step to select relevant conversations based on key procedural elements, and (2) a structured workflow generation step using question-answer-based chain-of-thought (QA-CoT) prompting. To comprehensively evaluate the quality of the extracted workflows, we introduce an automated simulation framework with agent and customer bots that measures their effectiveness in resolving customer issues. Extensive experiments on the ABCD and SynthABCD datasets show that our QA-CoT technique improves workflow extraction by 12.16% in average macro accuracy over the baseline. Moreover, our evaluation method closely aligns with human assessments, offering a reliable and scalable framework for future research.