From Fluent to Verifiable: Claim-Level Auditability for Deep Research Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.13855v1
• Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2026 19:39:15 GMT
• Title: From Fluent to Verifiable: Claim-Level Auditability for Deep Research Agents
• Authors: Razeen A Rasheed, Somnath Banerjee, Animesh Mukherjee, Rima Hazra,
• Abstract summary: We argue that as research generation becomes cheap, auditability becomes the bottleneck.<n>This perspective proposes claim-level auditability as a first-class design and evaluation target for deep research agents.
• Score: 8.49451413641847
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: A deep research agent produces a fluent scientific report in minutes; a careful reader then tries to verify the main claims and discovers the real cost is not reading, but tracing: which sentence is supported by which passage, what was ignored, and where evidence conflicts. We argue that as research generation becomes cheap, auditability becomes the bottleneck, and the dominant risk shifts from isolated factual errors to scientifically styled outputs whose claim-evidence links are weak, missing, or misleading. This perspective proposes claim-level auditability as a first-class design and evaluation target for deep research agents, distills recurring long-horizon failure modes (objective drift, transient constraints, and unverifiable inference), and introduces the Auditable Autonomous Research (AAR) standard, a compact measurement framework that makes auditability testable via provenance coverage, provenance soundness, contradiction transparency, and audit effort. We then argue for semantic provenance with protocolized validation: persistent, queryable provenance graphs that encode claim--evidence relations (including conflicts) and integrate continuous validation during synthesis rather than after publication, with practical instrumentation patterns to support deployment at scale.

Related papers

• CiteAudit: You Cited It, But Did You Read It? A Benchmark for Verifying Scientific References in the LLM Era [51.63024682584688]
  Large language models (LLMs) introduce a new risk: fabricated references that appear plausible but correspond to no real publications.<n>We present the first comprehensive benchmark and detection framework for hallucinated citations in scientific writing.<n>Our framework significantly outperforms prior methods in both accuracy and interpretability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-26T19:17:39Z)
• Think Locally, Explain Globally: Graph-Guided LLM Investigations via Local Reasoning and Belief Propagation [5.191980417814362]
  LLM agents excel when environments are mostly static and the needed information fits in a model's context window.<n>ReAct-style agents are especially brittle in this regime.<n>We propose EoG, a framework in which an LLM performs bounded local evidence mining and labeling (cause vs symptom) while a deterministic controller manages, state, and belief propagation to compute a minimal explanatory frontier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-25T17:27:19Z)
• Preventing the Collapse of Peer Review Requires Verification-First AI [49.995126139461085]
  We propose truth-coupling, i.e. how tightly venue scores track latent scientific truth.<n>We formalize two forces that drive a phase transition toward proxy-sovereign evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T17:17:32Z)
• PaperAudit-Bench: Benchmarking Error Detection in Research Papers for Critical Automated Peer Review [54.141490756509306]
  We introduce PaperAudit-Bench, which consists of two components: PaperAudit-Dataset, an error dataset, and PaperAudit-Review, an automated review framework.<n>Experiments on PaperAudit-Bench reveal large variability in error detectability across models and detection depths.<n>We show that the dataset supports training lightweight LLM detectors via SFT and RL, enabling effective error detection at reduced computational cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T04:26:12Z)
• DeepSynth-Eval: Objectively Evaluating Information Consolidation in Deep Survey Writing [53.85037373860246]
  We introduce Deep Synth-Eval, a benchmark designed to objectively evaluate information consolidation capabilities.<n>We propose a fine-grained evaluation protocol using General Checklists (for factual coverage) and Constraint Checklists (for structural organization)<n>Our results demonstrate that agentic plan-and-write significantly outperform single-turn generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T03:07:52Z)
• Audit the Whisper: Detecting Steganographic Collusion in Multi-Agent LLMs [0.0]
  Audit the Whisper is a conference-grade research artifact that spans theory, benchmark design, detection, and validation.<n>Our contributions are: (i) a channel-capacity analysis showing how interventions such as paraphrase, rate limiting, and role permutation impose quantifiable capacity penalties-operationalised via paired-run Kullback-Leibler diagnostics.<n>We release anonymized regeneration scripts, anonymized manifests, and documentation so external auditors can reproduce every figure, satisfy double-blind requirements, and extend the framework with minimal effort.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-05T17:51:52Z)
• Faithfulness-Aware Uncertainty Quantification for Fact-Checking the Output of Retrieval Augmented Generation [108.13261761812517]
  We introduce FRANQ (Faithfulness-based Retrieval Augmented UNcertainty Quantification), a novel method for hallucination detection in RAG outputs.<n>We present a new long-form Question Answering (QA) dataset annotated for both factuality and faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T11:56:59Z)
• CRAVE: A Conflicting Reasoning Approach for Explainable Claim Verification Using LLMs [15.170312674645535]
  CRAVE is a Conflicting Reasoning Approach for explainable claim VErification.<n>It can verify complex claims based on the conflicting rationales reasoned by large language models.<n>CRAVE achieves much better performance than state-of-the-art methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T07:20:31Z)
• Retrieval is Not Enough: Enhancing RAG Reasoning through Test-Time Critique and Optimization [58.390885294401066]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become a widely adopted paradigm for enabling knowledge-grounded large language models (LLMs)<n>RAG pipelines often fail to ensure that model reasoning remains consistent with the evidence retrieved, leading to factual inconsistencies or unsupported conclusions.<n>We propose AlignRAG, a novel iterative framework grounded in Critique-Driven Alignment (CDA)<n>We introduce AlignRAG-auto, an autonomous variant that dynamically terminates refinement, removing the need to pre-specify the number of critique iterations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T04:56:47Z)
• Towards Effective Extraction and Evaluation of Factual Claims [1.8262547855491458]
  A common strategy for fact-checking long-form content generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) is extracting simple claims that can be verified independently.<n>We propose a framework for evaluating claim extraction in the context of fact-checking along with automated, scalable, and replicable methods for applying this framework.<n>We also introduce Claimify, an LLM-based claim extraction method, and demonstrate that it outperforms existing methods under our evaluation framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-15T16:58:05Z)
• Interpretable Automatic Fine-grained Inconsistency Detection in Text Summarization [56.94741578760294]
  We propose the task of fine-grained inconsistency detection, the goal of which is to predict the fine-grained types of factual errors in a summary. Motivated by how humans inspect factual inconsistency in summaries, we propose an interpretable fine-grained inconsistency detection model, FineGrainFact.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T22:11:47Z)
• LongChecker: Improving scientific claim verification by modeling full-abstract context [38.73116177387815]
  We introduce the LongChecker system for scientific claim verification. Given a scientific claim and an evidence-containing research abstract, LongChecker predicts a veracity label and identifies supporting rationales. By making labeling decisions based on all available context, LongChecker achieves better performance on cases requiring this type of understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-02T23:37:16Z)
• AmbiFC: Fact-Checking Ambiguous Claims with Evidence [57.7091560922174]
  We present AmbiFC, a fact-checking dataset with 10k claims derived from real-world information needs. We analyze disagreements arising from ambiguity when comparing claims against evidence in AmbiFC. We develop models for predicting veracity handling this ambiguity via soft labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-01T17:40:08Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.