DeepFact: Co-Evolving Benchmarks and Agents for Deep Research Factuality
Organizations: Duke University · Amazon AGI · Boston University
Abstract
Search-augmented LLM agents can produce deep research reports (DRRs), but verifying claim-level factuality remains challenging. Existing fact-checkers are primarily designed for general-domain, factoid-style atomic claims, and there is no benchmark to test whether such verifiers transfer to DRRs. Yet building such a benchmark is itself difficult. We first show that static expert-labeled benchmarks are brittle in this setting: in a controlled study with PhD-level specialists, unassisted experts achieve only 60.8% accuracy on a hidden micro-gold set of verifiable claims. We propose Evolving Benchmarking via Audit-then-Score (AtS), where benchmark labels and rationales are explicitly revisable: when a verifier disagrees with the current benchmark, it must submit evidence; an auditor adjudicates the dispute; and accepted revisions update the benchmark before models are scored. Across four AtS rounds, expert micro-gold accuracy rises to 90.9%, indicating experts are substantially more reliable as auditors than as one-shot labelers. We instantiate AtS as DeepFact-Bench, a versioned DRR factuality benchmark with auditable rationales, and DeepFact-Eval, a document-level verification agent (with a grouped lite variant) that outperforms existing verifiers on DeepFact-Bench and transfers well to external factuality datasets.
Figures & tables
| Decision Flow | Interpretation | Proportion |
|---|---|---|
| H:0 → A:1 → H’:1 | Human learns from correct agent | 22.4% |
| H:0 → A:0 → H’:1 | Human learns from wrong agent | 0.0% |
| H:1 → A:1 → H’:1 | Both correct throughout | 44.8% |
| H:1 → A:0 → H’:1 | Human resists being misled | 13.3% |
| H:0 → A:1 → H’:0 | Stays wrong despite right agent | 5.6% |
| H:0 → A:0 → H’:0 | Both wrong; no improvement | 11.2% |
| Model | Backbone | Quality | Efficiency | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acc | F1 | Precision | Recall | Input Tokens | Output Tokens | Cost | ||
| Main Results | ||||||||
| Factcheck-GPT | GPT-4.1 | 55.0 | 58.3 | 67.7 | 51.2 | – | – | – |
| SAFE | GPT-4.1 | 55.9 | 53.0 | 76.3 | 40.6 | – | – | – |
| VeriScore | GPT-4.1 | 52.5 | 48.9 | 71.9 | 37.0 | – | – | – |
| Fire | GPT-4.1 | 58.5 | 63.2 | 69.2 | 58.3 | – | – | – |
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Label | Definition (sentence-level) | Requirements / Decision criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Supported | All factual claims in the sentence are directly or logically supported by at least one source, and no equally or more credible source contradicts any part of the sentence. | (i) The source(s) cover every factual element of the sentence. (ii) If inference is used, it must be transparent and logically valid (no speculative leaps). (iii) Evidence is sufficient to guarantee the claim as stated. (iv) No equally or more credible source refutes any part of the sentence. |
| Inconclusive | If no claims are Contradictory , but at least one claim is Inconclusive , and the rest are either Inconclusive or Supported , then the sentence is marked Inconclusive . | (i) At least one claim lacks direct support and lacks credible refutation. (ii) The inference chain is weak/speculative or not clearly grounded. (iii) Evidence is missing or internally conflicting without a clear resolution. |
| Contradictory | If any single factual claim in the sentence is contradicted by a reliable source, and no equally strong support exists, the entire sentence is marked Contradictory . | (i) At least one claim is clearly refuted (negated or directly contradicted) by a reliable source. (ii) No stronger or equally reliable evidence supports the refuted claim. |
| None | The sentence contains no verifiable factual claims; it instead expresses opinions, vague speculation, moral judgments, or rhetorical language. | Non-verifiable (see Table 7 ). |
| Claim | Label | Evidence | Model | Model reason | New | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHEK2 is not associated with breast cancer. | T | We genotyped these six tagSNPs in 1,577 postmenopausal breast cancer cases and 1,513 population controls, but found no convincing association between any common CHEK2 haplotype and breast cancer risk. The 1100delC mutation was rare in our Swedish population—0.7% in cases and 0.4% in controls—with a corresponding odds ratio for carriers versus noncarriers of 2.26 (95% confidence interval, 0.99–5.15). | F | Clinical genetics literature treats CHEK2 as a moderate-penetrance breast cancer susceptibility gene (e.g., pathogenic variants like 1100delC increase risk); thus the absolute “not associated” claim is false. | F | Label-evidence misalignment: the evidence supports “common CHEK2 polymorphisms/haplotypes were not convincingly associated”, but it does not support “CHEK2 (as a gene) is not associated,” since a known rare variant shows increased risk in their data and prior work |
| In young and middle-aged adults, current or remote uses of ADHD medications do not increase the risk of serious cardiovascular events. | T | RR for serious CV events: current vs nonuse ; new users ; conclusion: not associated with increased risk. | F | Argues newer long-horizon evidence suggests duration-dependent increases in broader CVD outcomes (e.g., hypertension/arterial disease; cardiomyopathy), so the categorical “do not increase” is contradicted. | F | Newer evidence founded : Earlier work (e.g., Habel et al., JAMA 2011) found no increase in serious acute cardiovascular events with ADHD medication use, but newer studies with longer follow-up and cumulative exposure analyses report a modest increase in cardiovascular disease risk. e.g., Zhang et al., JAMA Psychiatry 2024) |
| Bone marrow cells contribute to adult macrophage compartments. | F | After bone marrow transplantation, host macrophages expanded when donor development was compromised (suggesting limited donor contribution). | T | General immunology evidence supports bone-marrow-derived monocytes contributing to adult macrophage pools (tissue- and context-dependent), so the broad claim can be true. | T | Overgeneralizing context-specific replenishment into a global macrophage origin claim: Benchmark evidence supports minimal contribution in a specific setting/tissue; claim is generic and may hold across tissues/conditions. |
| Claim | Label | Model | Model reason (concise) | New | Note (concise) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ExpertQA | |||||
| Perhaps you could narrow down your question by specifying a time period, a location, or a source of information that you are interested in. | F | T | Treats the suggestion as “supported” by research-methods best practices (narrowing questions by time/location/source). | U | This is conversational advice, not a checkable world fact. |
| Website security: You should verify that your website is safe and trustworthy for your users. | F | T | Best-practice guidance (e.g., OWASP/NIST/CISA-style) recommends validating security to protect users and maintain trust. | T | Normative, but still a valid best-practice claim; “supported” fits if ExpertQA treats recommendations as verifiable. |
| An in-memory database is a database that resides entirely in the memory of the application and does not persist data on disk. | T | F | In-memory DBs store primarily in RAM, but many support disk persistence (snapshots/logging) and are not necessarily “in the app’s memory.” | F | Overly absolute / incorrect definition due to “entirely” and “does not persist.” |
| FactCheck-Bench | |||||
| Abacus computing doesn’t need large amounts of energy. | F | T | An abacus is manual/mechanical and requires no electricity; energy use is only minimal human effort, negligible vs. electronic computing. | T | True in the intended “no external power / low energy” sense. |
| Score | Definition |
|---|---|
| 5 – Backbone claim | Essential to the core thesis. Removing this would break the logic or invalidate the main takeaway. Often appears in the title, abstract, or conclusion, and is referenced multiple times. |
| 4 – Critical support | Key evidence or reasoning that directly supports a backbone claim. Removing it weakens the argument substantially but does not break the core conclusion. |
| 3 – Standard support | Provides helpful background or secondary evidence. Removing it moderately weakens the report but leaves the main thesis intact. |
| 2 – Minor context | Background detail, definition, or peripheral comment. Removing it has little to no effect on the main message. |
| 1 – Irrelevant or off-topic | Unrelated, redundant, or likely a segmentation artifact. Removing it improves clarity or focus. |
| # | Category | Typical Location | Why It’s Non-Verifiable | Concrete Examples |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Document-structure & rhetorical framing (headings, previews, transitions) | Section titles, figure headings, opening or bridging sentences | Merely label or orient the reader; they don’t assert external facts. | “3 Dataset Construction”; “In the next subsection we detail the ablation study.” |
| B | Forward-looking statements | Abstract, introduction, future-work, conclusion | Refer to intentions or events that have not happened yet. | “We will extend this method to multilingual data next year.” |
| C | Research questions & hypotheses | Introduction, methods | Pose uncertainties; they explicitly seek answers rather than state facts. | “Does larger model size improve calibration?” |
| D | Subjective judgments & opinions | Discussion, conclusion, related-work critiques | Depend on author viewpoint or value judgments. | “Our approach is considerably more elegant than prior work.” |
| E | Citation lists & bibliographic metadata | In-text citations, References section | Point to external sources; correctness is about formatting, not truth value. | “(Smith et al., 2024)” |
| F | Speculative or motivational claims | Introduction, broader-impact, abstract | Describe possibilities, potential impact, or high-level vision rather than established facts. | “This technique could revolutionize personalized medicine.” |
| Code | Principle | Name | Definition / Example |
| 1. Collection-Stage Errors (Evidence Gathering) | |||
| C-AU | Authenticity | Fabricated Source | Cites a source, author, or quote that does not exist. e.g., “OpenAI’s GPT-4V did …” (no such study) |
| C-PV | Provenance | Mis-sourced Evidence | Real fact but assigned to the wrong author, venue, or year. e.g., arXiv preprint claimed to be a 2023 Nature paper |
| C-CP | Completeness | Omitted Counter-Evidence | Omits accessible contradictory or qualifying evidence. e.g., Ignores a larger meta-analysis contradicting a cited RCT |
| C-CU | Currency | Out-of-Date Source | Relies on retracted or outdated sources without caveats. e.g., Citing a 2019 draft despite a reversed 2024 version |
| C-RE | Representativeness | Biased Sampling | Uses narrow evidence (e.g., language, geography) that skews conclusions. e.g., All English news used to infer global media trends |
Automated Fact-Checking
Automated fact-checking detects checkable claims, retrieves evidence, and assesses whether that evidence supports or refutes them.
See all 139 papers