Search agents mitigate hallucination by grounding their answers in retrieved web results. However, retrieval-based approaches also introduce an attack surface: agents may cite misinformation from poisoned search corpora containing false or malicious documents. We demonstrate that, in some cases, search agents' reasoning and responses may be steered by completely factual but distracting information. We refer to this failure as lazy grounding. We expose lazy grounding by injecting nearby evidence from answer-changing rewrites of benchmark questions into the search corpora. Each document contains factual evidence that supports a neighboring rewritten question but is retrieved for the original question. Across 12 model-benchmark pairs, the attack causes the accuracy of search agents' responses to drop by 5.9 points on average and by up to 17.3 points, while inducing nearby-answer adoption in every setting. The effect is even stronger when nearby evidence appears later or is more answer-shaped. Our results show that robust search agents must defend against not only misinformation but also the misapplication of factual evidence. The code is publicly available at https://github.com/frankyzha/lazy-grounding.
Deep research agents increasingly operate over the open web, where relevant records coexist with redundant summaries, outdated reports, and misleading documents. Existing evaluations offer limited insight into whether agents preserve sound evidential standards when an ordinary-looking false document is deliberately seeded into a searchable environment and offers a direct shortcut to a conflicting answer. We introduce DRNOISE, a 100-task benchmark for answer recovery under misleading evidence. Each task has a unique gold answer supported by two corroborating indirect record chains; the paired noisy condition adds one plausible document that states a conflicting answer directly. The benchmark spans ten families of evidence operations. Across agents with strong clean-task performance, this single intervention causes 66-88 percentage-point accuracy drops. Trace analyses identify verification inertia as the dominant failure mode: agents often retrieve truthful records but stop before completing and reconciling the evidence chain, instead deferring to the answer-like document. Generic verification prompts reduce but do not close this gap. The setting is especially relevant to open-web deployment, where plausible falsehoods arrive through ordinary-looking pages rather than explicit attacks. Reliable deep research therefore requires more than retrieval and citation; it requires active reconciliation of direct claims with record-level evidence.
While search agents demonstrate impressive capabilities in multi-step question answering, their robustness to poor-quality evidence remains under-explored. This phenomenon occurs rarely in realistic benchmarks but can lead to dramatic failure in real life applications. Therefore in this study we propose DeepStress, a stress testing framework that controls the frequency of challenging evidence by replacing the retrieval module of search agents with a controlled synthetic environment. We use this framework to control three dimensions that can affect document reliability: trustworthiness, relevance, and factuality. Testing several search agents on HotpotQA and BrowseCompPlus, we demonstrate that agents exhibit substantial differences in their ability to handle unreliable information and propose new metrics that better document systems outcomes as well as the interactions between conflicting parametric and retrieved knowledge.
LLM search agents are often evaluated on final-answer accuracy, overlooking the process. Analyzing a search strategy requires understanding how credible evidence is retrieved to address question constraints. This valuable information is buried in raw search trajectories that are long and difficult to parse. We introduce SearchAtlas, a framework that converts search trajectories into structured graphs whose edges represent how evidence is propagated across the reasoning trace, from the query that retrieves it to the final answer. Our automated parsing pipeline achieves a mean edge F1 of 86.0% against human-annotated graphs and remains consistent across repeated runs. We analyze five search agents on three benchmarks, revealing systematic differences in search scale and evidence aggregation. SearchAtlas exposes fragmented answer support, question constraints that do not reach the answer, and unverified parametric knowledge entering the response. These process failures are strongly associated with incorrect answers, even more so than an LLM judge given either the raw trajectory or the ordered query list, suggesting that the constructed graphs provide useful interpretability. Moreover, an audit of cases in which process-diagnostic scores disagree with final-answer correctness shows that they capture information not reducible to answer accuracy.