← 研踪 PaperTrailACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.609 · 记录 #1
Beyond Single-shot Writing: Deep Research Agents are Unreliable at Multi-turn Report Revision
来源日期（仅到月份） 2026-07
来源记录日期 2026-07
雷达观测 2026-11-01 22:00
摘要
Existing benchmarks for Deep Research Agents (DRAs) treat report generation as a single-shot writing task, which fundamentally diverges from how human researchers iteratively draft and revise reports via self-reflection or peer feedback. Whether DRAs can reliably revise reports with user feedback remains unexplored. We introduce Mr Dre, an evaluation suite that establishes multi-turn report revision as a new axis. Mr Dre consists of (1) a unified long-form report evaluation protocol spanning comprehensiveness, factuality, and presentation, and (2) a human-verified feedback simulation pipeline for systematic multi-turn revision evaluation. Our analysis of five diverse DRAs reveals a critical limitation: while agents can address most user feedback, they also regress on 16–27% of previously covered content and citation quality. Over multiple revision turns, even the best-performing agents leave significant headroom, as they continue to disrupt content outside the feedback’s scope and fail to preserve earlier edits. We further show that these issues are not easily resolvable through inference-time fixes such as prompt engineering and a dedicated sub-agent for revision.
论文发现出处
这些页面提供论文线索，不代表同行评审或质量认证。
观测到的版本
平台记录号代表本站观测到的元数据变化，不是作者修订号。来源日期仅到月份或年份时，按该月或该年首日存档。
记录 #1 · 2026-07 · 最新观测版本
Beyond Single-shot Writing: Deep Research Agents are Unreliable at Multi-turn Report Revision
Existing benchmarks for Deep Research Agents (DRAs) treat report generation as a single-shot writing task, which fundamentally diverges from how human researchers iteratively draft and revise reports via self-reflection or peer feedback. Whether DRAs can reliably revise reports with user feedback remains unexplored. We introduce Mr Dre, an evaluation suite that establishes multi-turn report revision as a new axis. Mr Dre consists of (1) a unified long-form report evaluation protocol spanning comprehensiveness, factuality, and presentation, and (2) a human-verified feedback simulation pipeline for systematic multi-turn revision evaluation. Our analysis of five diverse DRAs reveals a critical limitation: while agents can address most user feedback, they also regress on 16–27% of previously covered content and citation quality. Over multiple revision turns, even the best-performing agents leave significant headroom, as they continue to disrupt content outside the feedback’s scope and fail to preserve earlier edits. We further show that these issues are not easily resolvable through inference-time fixes such as prompt engineering and a dedicated sub-agent for revision.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗