Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the reliability of deep-research agents by focusing on span-level error localization within their task-solving trajectories. By analyzing 2,790 real agent trajectories and developing the TELBench benchmark, the authors identify harmful error spans and propose the DRIFT auditing framework to enhance claim verification against trajectory evidence. The results demonstrate that DRIFT significantly improves error localization and first-error accuracy, achieving gains of up to 30 percentage points across various model families and frameworks.
Span-level error localization can boost deep-research agent reliability by up to 30 percentage points, revealing critical insights into where agents go wrong.
Deep-research agents solve tasks through long trajectories of search, tool use, evidence inspection, and answer synthesis. Evaluation based on final answers shows whether an agent succeeds, but not which parts of the trajectory make the answer unreliable. We study span-level error localization for deep-research agents. We collect 2,790 real trajectories from two agent frameworks, three backbone models, and three benchmarks, convert raw logs into semantic spans, and annotate harmful error spans through LLM-assisted expert review. From these annotations, we build TELBench, a 1,000-instance benchmark for identifying error spans among normal exploration, failed searches, tentative hypotheses, and harmless noise. We further propose DRIFT, a claim-centric auditing framework that tracks agent claims, checks their support in trajectory evidence, and marks spans where unsupported or conflicting claims affect the answer path. Experiments across model families and auditing frameworks show that DRIFT improves span-level error localization and first-error accuracy by up to 30 percentage points. Our work provides a process-level view of reliability in deep-research agents.
