# Multi-Turn Evaluation of Deep Research Agents Under Process-Level Feedback

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.09748 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.09748/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Web, search, and research agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 12 of its 17 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Jun 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Web, search, and research agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/web-search-and-research-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 12 of 12)

- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [DeepResearch Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Deep Research Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.11763/) (2025)
- [ResearchRubrics: A Benchmark of Prompts and Rubrics For Evaluating Deep Research Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.07685/) (2025)
- [LiveResearchBench: A Live Benchmark for User-Centric Deep Research in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.14240/) (2025)
- [DeepResearch Bench II: Diagnosing Deep Research Agents via Rubrics from Expert Reports](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.08536/) (2026)
- [ResearcherBench: Evaluating Deep AI Research Systems on the Frontiers of Scientific Inquiry](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.16280/) (2025)
- [DRBench: A Realistic Benchmark for Enterprise Deep Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.00172/) (2025)
- [DRACO: a Cross-Domain Benchmark for Deep Research Accuracy, Completeness, and Objectivity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.11685/) (2026)
- [IDRBench: Benchmarking the Interactive Capabilities of Deep Research Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.06676/) (2026)
- [Beyond Single-shot Writing: Deep Research Agents are Unreliable at Multi-turn Report Revision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.13217/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Existing benchmarks for deep research agents (DRAs) assess only single-shot outputs, ignoring a key question: can DRAs improve their reports when guided by feedback? To investigate this, we conduct a multi-turn evaluation of DRAs under two feedback settings: self-reflection, in which the agent revises its report without any external diagnostic signal, and process-level feedback, in which the agent receives guidance targeting gaps in its research strategy. To enable process-level feedback, we design Research Gap Inference (RGI), a method that analyzes patterns of satisfied and unsatisfied rubric criteria to infer research-process gaps. Our analysis reveals three key findings: (i) under self-reflection, agents incorporate and regress on rubric criteria at nearly equal rates, yielding negligible net improvement; (ii) a single round of process-level feedback yields substantial gains, raising the normalized score by approximately 8-15 points and yielding a roughly 35-40% incorporation rate; (iii) these gains do not compound over subsequent turns, as agents regress on up to 24% of previously satisfied criteria when rewriting the full report to address remaining gaps. Even with targeted guidance, reliable multi-turn improvement remains out of reach for the DRA architectures we evaluate. Our code and results are publicly available at https://github.com/sabharwalrishabh/Multi-Turn-Evaluation-of-DRAs.