Who is the Agent to Blame? Localizing Faithfulness and Citation Mistakes in Agentic Deep Research

Diagnosing failure patterns in Deep Research Agents (DRAs) remains a critical challenge. Existing benchmarks predominantly rely on end-to-end evaluation, obscuring intermediate hallucinations that accumulate throughout the research trajectory. To bridge this gap, we propose a shift from outcome-based to process-aware evaluation by auditing hallucinations in the full plan-search-summarize trajectory. We introduce the PING Taxonomy, which categorizes DRA hallucinations into four complementary types: Propagation, Intent, Noise-induced, and Grounding. We further instantiate this taxonomy into a fine-grained evaluation framework that decomposes trajectories into atomic actions, claims, and sub-queries for rigorous verification, and we validate its reliability on standard fact-checking benchmarks and human-reviewed trajectories. Leveraging this framework to isolate 100 hallucination-prone tasks, including adversarial scenarios, we curate DeepHalluBench. Experiments on six representative DRAs show that, on our hallucination-prone stress-test set, all evaluated systems still exhibit non-negligible reliability gaps. Furthermore, our diagnostic analysis traces these failures to systemic deficits, especially hallucination propagation and cognitive biases, providing actionable insights for future architectural optimization. Code and data are available at https://github.com/yuhao-zhan/DeepHalluBench.

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.

Deep Research Agents (DRAs) aim to answer complex questions by searching the web, checking evidence, and synthesizing conclusions across heterogeneous sources. We introduce a category-theoretic framework for evaluating and improving such agents. The framework treats deep research as a structured mapping from user intent to evidence-grounded conclusions, making retrieval traces, cross-source alignment, and final synthesis explicit. Guided by this view, we derive a mechanism-aware benchmark of 296 bilingual questions. The benchmark targets four structural skills central to real research: following multi-hop evidence chains, verifying claims across sources, re-ordering fragmented information, and rejecting unsupported assumptions. We evaluate 16 frontier systems with human verification and find that these structural tasks remain highly challenging: the best system reaches only 19.9% average accuracy. The results show that strong agents can sometimes reorganize evidence and detect false premises, but still struggle with long-horizon synthesis and intersection-heavy verification. Beyond evaluation, the same theory also leads to practical system improvements. We instantiate theory-guided interventions such as tracked search, which preserves retrieval traces, and category tools, which add explicit verification and synthesis steps. These interventions yield measurable gains in API-based deep research systems. Our work therefore provides both a challenging benchmark and concrete design guidance for building more reliable research agents.