Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Source content · Analysis pending2 min read

Characterizing Web Search by Conversational LLM Agents: From Search Decisions and Strategies to Results and Responses

Summary

arXiv:2609.19244v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Conversational LLM agents increasingly rely on Web search, yet the end-to-end lifecycle of agentic search remains poorly understood. We present the first study of Web search across four major conversational platforms (ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, and DeepSeek), combining real-world user interactions (invivo) with controlled experiments using the same platform's models by their APIs (invitro). We investigate the quality of agentic decisions to invoke Web search, their strategies to formulate queries, the potential domain preferences in the search results they receive, and the choices they make when transforming search results into grounded responses. We find that Web-search decisions vary substantially across platforms and models, while more freque…

SourcearXiv AIAuthor: Mahsa Amani, Seungeon Lee, Abhisek Dash, Asmaa El Fraihi, Yunah Jang, Elisabeth Kirsten, Qinyuan Wu, Krishna P. Gummadi, Manish Gupta, Abhilasha Ravichander, Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Soumi Das
Characterizing Web Search by Conversational LLM Agents: From Search Decisions and Strategies to Results and Responses
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 16 Sep 2026]

Title:Characterizing Web Search by Conversational LLM Agents: From Search Decisions and Strategies to Results and Responses

View a PDF of the paper titled Characterizing Web Search by Conversational LLM Agents: From Search Decisions and Strategies to Results and Responses, by Mahsa Amani and 11 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Conversational LLM agents increasingly rely on Web search, yet the end-to-end lifecycle of agentic search remains poorly understood. We present the first study of Web search across four major conversational platforms (ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, and DeepSeek), combining real-world user interactions (invivo) with controlled experiments using the same platform's models by their APIs (invitro). We investigate the quality of agentic decisions to invoke Web search, their strategies to formulate queries, the potential domain preferences in the search results they receive, and the choices they make when transforming search results into grounded responses. We find that Web-search decisions vary substantially across platforms and models, while more frequent Web-search invocation does not necessarily yield better response quality. We further show that conversational agents employ different complex querying strategies and that platform specific search engines return search results from their preferred domains. Finally, although responses are largely grounded in search results, some claims rely on uncited search results, raising concerns about attribution and reliability. Our findings have important implications for the design of future AI agents and Web search tools optimized for conversational retrieval.

Subjects:

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Information Retrieval (cs.IR)

Cite as: arXiv:2609.19244 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2609.19244v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.19244

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Mahsa Amani [view email] [v1] Wed, 16 Sep 2026 17:56:32 UTC (1,583 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Characterizing Web Search by Conversational LLM Agents: From Search Decisions and Strategies to Results and Responses, by Mahsa Amani and 11 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.AI

new | recent | 2026-09

Change to browse by:

cs cs.IR

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • AI generation is temporarily unavailable; this entry was preserved with deterministic fallback metadata.
  • arXiv:2609.19244v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Conversational LLM agents increasingly rely on Web search, yet the end-to-end lifecycle of agentic search remains poorly understood…

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.