arXiv preprint ·
Search Shapes Conclusions: Auditing Evidence Selection Bias in Deep Research Agents
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Deep Research agents synthesize evidence into cited reports, yet a well-cited report can still reach a misleading conclusion. Citation correctness checks whether cited sources support individual claims. It does not show whether adaptive search exposed a representative view of all documents made available for evaluation, which we call the candidate pool. Early findings redirect later queries, document choices, and stopping, so the documents an agent reads form a selective sample. Existing evaluations rarely account for this selection. We formulate the problem as adaptive evidence sampling and introduce Causal Evidence Selection Correction (CESS). CESS predicts each candidate document's evidence direction and corrects the candidate-pool average using the logged probabilities of selecting each document and reaching each search round. Shrinkage stabilizes short searches, while intervals replace point estimates when some documents cannot be sampled. We also prove that estimating the average evidence direction of a common pool differs from measuring how a change in search policy alters the evidence read. The latter requires intervention. On questions from the MS2 systematic-review benchmark, CESS reduces mean absolute error against the candidate-pool average by $9.2\%$ and reduces the estimate's change under opposing document rankings by $39.4\%$ relative to averaging the evidence scores of documents read. Across trajectories from a public Open Deep Research agent, the corresponding reductions reach $60.1\%$ and $87.2\%$. A further 4,800 trajectories under paired interventions confirm that correcting a pool estimate and measuring a policy effect are different tasks. CESS therefore audits whether the evidence direction underlying a report reflects the documents available for evaluation, while a separate intervention analysis measures the effect of search decisions.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
ReGain: Restoring Subject Fidelity in Personalization on Synthetic Images
Geometric Similarity in VLM Low-Level Vision Representations
Unveiling the Value of Motion for Cinematic Camera Trajectories
Learning Multiple Timescales for Goal-Conditioned Reinforcement Learning
Concept-Grounded Attention: A Controlled Evaluation of Graph-Injected Attention, Temporal Versioning, and Epistemic Status
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.