ST-WebAgentBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Safety and Trustworthiness in Web Agents
Open accessAbstract
Autonomous web agents solve complex browsing tasks, yet existing benchmarks measure only whether an agent finishes a task, ignoring whether it does so safely or in a way enterprises can trust. To integrate these agents into critical workflows, safety and trustworthiness (ST) are prerequisite conditions for adoption. We introduce \textbf{\textsc{ST-WebAgentBench}}, a configurable and easily extensible suite for evaluating web agent ST across realistic enterprise scenarios. Each of its 222 tasks is paired with ST policies, concise rules that encode constraints, and is scored along six orthogonal dimensions (e.g., user consent, robustness). Beyond raw task success, we propose the \textit{Completion Under Policy} (\textit{CuP}) metric, which credits only completions that respect all applicable policies, and the \textit{Risk Ratio}, which quantifies ST breaches across dimensions. Evaluating three open state-of-the-art agents reveals that their average CuP is less than two-thirds of their nominal completion rate, exposing critical safety gaps. By releasing code, evaluation templates, and a policy-authoring interface, \href{https://sites.google.com/view/st-webagentbench/home}{\textsc{ST-WebAgentBench}} provides an actionable first step toward deploying trustworthy web agents at scale.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
LLM-based autonomous agents remain highly vulnerable to malicious instructions and adversarial attacks, which can lead to severe consequences such as privacy breaches and financial losses.
“However, they remain highly vulnerable to malicious instructions and attacks, which can result in severe consequences such as privacy breaches and financial losses.”
From ShieldAgent: Shielding Agents via Verifiable Safety Policy Reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as Levy et al., 2024
The Introduction (page unavailable) says jailbreak attacks can succeed against browser-controlled agents, and §3.2 identifies prompt injection and exposure of sensitive data as safety concerns. The Results (§4.2, page unavailable) also report policy breaches by evaluated web agents. The paper does not establish financial losses as a consequence, and its evidence concerns web agents rather than LLM-based autonomous agents generally. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSHIELDAGENT achieves SOTA on SHIELDAGENT-BENCH and three existing benchmarks.
“Experiments show that SHIELDAGENT achieves SOTA on SHIELDAGENT-BENCH and three existing benchmarks”
From ShieldAgent: Shielding Agents via Verifiable Safety Policy Reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as Levy et al., 2024
The Introduction describes benchmarking three web agents on ST-WebAgentBench, and the Experimental setup likewise concerns those agents. Searches for SHIELDAGENT, SHIELDAGENT-BENCH, and its claimed results on three existing benchmarks found no passage addressing those results in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.77)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey
Xi, Z., Chen, W., Guo, X., He, W., Ding, Y., Hong, B., Zhang, M., Wang, J., Jin, S., Zhou, E., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.07864 · Cited by 972 · see citing works
Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Coeckelbergh, M., López de Prado, M., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2023) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101896 · Cited by 800 · see citing works
SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Models
Manakul, P., Liusie, A., & Gales, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.557 · Cited by 557 · see citing works
TrustLLM: Trustworthiness in Large Language Models
Huang, Y., Sun, L., Wang, H., Wu, S., Zhang, Q., Li, Y., Gao, C., Huang, Y., Lyu, W., Zhang, Y., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.05561 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
The BrowserGym Ecosystem for Web Agent ResearchPreprint
de Chezelles, T. L. S., Gasse, M., Lacoste, A., Drouin, A., Caccia, M., Boisvert, L., Thakkar, M., Marty, T., Assouel, R., Shayegan, S., et al. (2024) · Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.05467 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation
Wu, Q., Bansal, G., Zhang, J., Wu, Y., Li, B., Zhu, E., Jiang, L., Zhang, X., Zhang, S., Liu, J., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.08155 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
(2023) · doi:10.52202/075280-1220 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Clarify When Necessary: Resolving Ambiguity Through Interaction with LMs
Zhang, M. J. Q., & Choi, E. (2023) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.09469 · Cited by 132
A Review of Safe Reinforcement Learning: Methods, Theory and ApplicationsPreprint
Gu, S., Yang, L., Du, Y., Chen, G., Walter, F., Wang, J., & Knoll, A. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.10330 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
WebShop: Towards Scalable Real-World Web Interaction with Grounded Language Agents
Yao, S., Chen, H., Yang, J., & Narasimhan, K. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-1508 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
WorkArena++: Towards Compositional Planning and Reasoning-based Common Knowledge Work Tasks
Boisvert, L., Thakkar, M., Gasse, M., et al. (2024) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.05291 · Cited by 96
Refusal-Trained LLMs Are Easily Jailbroken As Browser AgentsPreprint
Kumar, P., Lau, E., Vijayakumar, S., et al. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.13886 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents
Liu, X., Yu, H., Zhang, H., Xu, Y., Lei, X., Lai, H., Gu, Y., Ding, H., Men, K., Yang, K., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.03688 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Trustworthy LLMs: a Survey and Guideline for Evaluating Large Language Models' Alignment
Liu, Y., Yao, Y., Ton, J.-F., Zhang, X., Guo, R., Cheng, H., Klochkov, Y., Taufiq, M. F., & Li, H. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.05374 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
SeeClick: Harnessing GUI Grounding for Advanced Visual GUI Agents
Cheng, K., Sun, Q., Chu, Y., Xu, F., YanTao, L., Zhang, J., & Wu, Z. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.505 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
AutoWebGLM: A Large Language Model-based Web Navigating Agent
Lai, H., Liu, X., Iong, I. L., Yao, S., Chen, Y., Shen, P., Yu, H., Zhang, H., Zhang, X., Dong, Y., et al. (2024) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3637528.3671620 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Reinforcement Learning on Web Interfaces Using Workflow-Guided Exploration
Liu, E. Z., Guu, K., Pasupat, P., Shi, T., & Liang, P. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1802.08802 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
A Survey on Trustworthy LLM Agents: Threats and Countermeasures
Yu, M., Meng, F., Zhou, X., Wang, S., Mao, J., Pang, L., Chen, T., Wang, K., Li, X., Zhang, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.09648 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Agent-E: From Autonomous Web Navigation to Foundational Design Principles in Agentic Systems
Abuelsaad, T., Akkil, D., Dey, P., Jagmohan, A., Vempaty, A., & Kokku, R. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.13032 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Toward a Human-Centered Evaluation Framework for Trustworthy LLM-Powered GUI Agents
Chen, C.-R., Zhang, Z.-P., Khalilov, I., et al. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.17934 · Cited by 18
Enhancing Trust in LLM-Based AI Automation Agents: New Considerations and Future ChallengesPreprint
Schwartz, S., Yaeli, A., & Shlomov, S. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.05391 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Self-citationAssistantBench: Can Web Agents Solve Realistic and Time-Consuming Tasks?
Yoran, O., Amouyal, S. J., Malaviya, C., Bogin, B., Press, O., & Berant, J. (2024) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.505 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Evil Geniuses: Delving into the Safety of LLM-based Agents
Tian, Y., Yang, X., Zhang, J., Dong, Y., & Su, H. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.11855 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Agent Q: Advanced Reasoning and Learning for Autonomous AI Agents
Putta, P., Mills, E., Garg, N., Motwani, S., Finn, C., Garg, D., & Rafailov, R. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.07199 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Agent-SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of LLM Agents
Zhang, Z., Cui, S., Lu, Y., Zhou, J., Yang, J., Wang, H., & Huang, M. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.14470 · Cited by 6 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This omission limits the practical, real-world application of these benchmarks, ultimately hindering the adoption of web agents in business settings.”
Wang, Z. Z., Mao, J., Fried, D., & Neubig, G. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.07429 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Introducing v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark from MLCommons
Vidgen, B., Agrawal, A., Ahmed, A. M., Akinwande, V., Al-Nuaimi, N., Alfaraj, N., Alhajjar, E., Aroyo, L., Bavalatti, T., Bartolo, M., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.12241 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
WebCanvas: Benchmarking Web Agents in Online Environments
Pan, Y., Kong, D., Zhou, S., Cui, C., Leng, Y., Jiang, B., Liu, H., Shang, Y., Zhou, S., Wu, T., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.12373 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Defending Against AI Threats with a User-Centric Trustworthiness Assessment Framework
Kafali, E., Preuveneers, D., Semertzidis, T., & Daras, P. (2024) · Big Data and Cognitive Computing · doi:10.3390/bdcc8110142 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Grounding Open-Domain Instructions to Automate Web Support TasksPreprint
Xu, N., Masling, S., Du, M., Campagna, G., Heck, L. P., Landay, J. A., & Lam, M. S. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.16057 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
WorkArena: How Capable Are Web Agents at Solving Common Knowledge Work Tasks?
Drouin, A., Gasse, M., Caccia, M., Laradji, I. H., Del Verme, M., Marty, T., Boisvert, L., Thakkar, M., Cappart, Q., Vazquez, D., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.07718 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
GuardAgent: Safeguard LLM Agents by a Guard Agent via Knowledge-Enabled Reasoning
Xiang, Z., Zheng, L., Li, Y., Hong, J., Li, Q., Xie, H., Zhang, J., Xiong, Z., Xie, C., Yang, C., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.09187 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
R-Judge: Benchmarking Safety Risk Awareness for LLM Agents
Yuan, T., He, Z., Dong, L., Wang, Y., Zhao, R., Xia, T., Xu, L., Zhou, B., Li, F., Zhang, Z., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.10019 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
SafeAgentBench: A Benchmark for Safe Task Planning of Embodied LLM Agents
Yin, S., Pang, X., Ding, Y., Chen, M., Bi, Y., Xiong, Y., Huang, W., Xiang, Z., Shao, J., & Chen, S. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.13178 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
WebLINX: Real-World Website Navigation with Multi-Turn Dialogue
Lù, X. H., Kasner, Z., & Reddy, S. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.05930 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Reducing Tool Hallucination via Reliability AlignmentPreprint
Xu, H., Zhu, Z., Pan, L., Wang, Z., Zhu, S., Ma, D., Cao, R., Chen, L., & Yu, K. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.04141 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Position: Towards a Responsible LLM-empowered Multi-Agent SystemsPreprint
Hu, J., Dong, Y., Ao, S., Li, Z., Wang, B., Singh, L., Cheng, G., Ramchurn, S. D., & Huang, X. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.01714 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Pathade, C. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.04806 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
VisualWebArena: Evaluating Multimodal Agents on Realistic Visual Web Tasks
Koh, J. Y., Lo, R., Jang, L., Duvvur, V., Lim, M. C., Huang, P.-Y., Neubig, G., Zhou, S., Salakhutdinov, R., & Fried, D. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.13649 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Shamsujjoha, M., Lu, Q., Zhao, D., et al. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.02205 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
WebSuite: Systematically Evaluating Why Web Agents FailPreprint
Li, E., & Waldo, J. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.01623 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Symbiotic Cooperation for Web Agents: Harnessing Complementary Strengths of Large and Small LLMsPreprint
Zhang, R., Qiu, M., Tan, Z., Zhang, M., Lu, V. J. M., Peng, J., Xu, K., Agudelo, L. Z., Qian, P., & Chen, T. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.07942
ScribeAgent: Towards Specialized Web Agents Using Production-Scale Workflow Data
Shen, J., Jain, A., Xiao, Z., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.15004
Safeguarding Large Language Models: A Survey
Dong, Y., Mu, R., Zhang, Y., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.02622
Wornow, M., Narayan, A., Viggiano, B., et al. (2024) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 · doi:10.52202/079017-3682
Tools Fail: Detecting Silent Errors in Faulty Tools
Sun, J., Min, S. Y., Chang, Y., & Bisk, Y. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.790
From Grounding to Planning: Benchmarking Bottlenecks in Web Agents
Shlomov, S., wiesel, B., Sela, A., Levy, I., Galanti, L., & Abitbol, R. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.01927
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Xingyao Wang, Boxuan Li, Yufan Song, Frank F Xu, Xiangru Tang, Mingchen Zhuge, Jiayi Pan, Yueqi Song, Bowen Li, Jaskirat Singh, et al. Openhands: An open platform for ai software develop- ers as generalist agents. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024a.
- Hongliang He, Wenlin Yao, Kaixin Ma, Wenhao Yu, Yong Dai, Hongming Zhang, Zhenzhong Lan, and Dong Yu. WebVoyager: Building an end-to-end web agent with large multimodal models. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar, editors, Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6864-6890, Bangkok, Thailand, August 2024. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/2024.acl-long.371.
- Melissa Z Pan, Mert Cemri, Lakshya A Agrawal, Shuyi Yang, Bhavya Chopra, Rishabh Tiwari, Kurt Keutzer, Aditya Parameswaran, Kannan Ramchandran, Dan Klein, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Matei Zaharia, and Ion Stoica. Why do multiagent systems fail? In ICLR 2025 Workshop on Building Trust in Language Models and Applications, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=wM521FqPvI.
- Shuyan Zhou, Frank F Xu, Hao Zhu, Xuhui Zhou, Robert Lo, Abishek Sridhar, Xianyi Cheng, Tianyue Ou, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, et al. Webarena: A realistic web environment for building autonomous agents. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024.
- Su Kara, Fazle Faisal, and Suman Nath. Waber: Evaluating reliability and efficiency of web agents with existing benchmarks. In ICLR 2025 Workshop on Foundation Models in the Wild, 2025.
- Tianlin Shi, Andrej Karpathy, Linxi Fan, Jonathan Hernandez, and Percy Liang. World of bits: An open-domain platform for web-based agents. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3135-3144. PMLR, 2017.
- Boyuan Zheng, Boyu Gou, Jihyung Kil, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. Gpt-4v (ision) is a generalist web agent, if grounded. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024.
- Ke Yang, Yao Liu, Sapana Chaudhary, Rasool Fakoor, Pratik Chaudhari, George Karypis, and Huzefa Rangwala. Agentoccam: A simple yet strong baseline for LLM-based web agents. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URL https:// openreview.net/forum?id=oWdzUpOlkX.
- Paloma Sodhi, SRK Branavan, Yoav Artzi, and Ryan McDonald. Step: Stacked llm policies for web actions. In First Conference on Language Modeling, 2024.
- Hanrong Zhang, Jingyuan Huang, Kai Mei, Yifei Yao, Zhenting Wang, Chenlu Zhan, Hongwei Wang, and Yongfeng Zhang. Agent security bench (ASB): Formalizing and benchmarking attacks and defenses in LLM-based agents. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025b. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=V4y0CpX4hK.
- NIST AI. Artificial intelligence risk management framework (ai rmf 1.0). URL: https://nvlpubs. nist. gov/nistpubs/ai/nist. ai, pages 100-1, 2023.
- Lichao Sun, Yue Huang, Haoran Wang, Siyuan Wu, Qihui Zhang, Chujie Gao, Yixin Huang, Wenhan Lyu, Yixuan Zhang, Xiner Li, et al. Trustllm: Trustworthiness in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05561, 3, 2024a. · arXiv
- Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Ye Jin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM computing surveys, 55(12):1-38, 2023.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Agentic AI Security: Threats, Defenses, Evaluation, and Open Challenges
Chhabra, A., Datta, S., Nahin, S. K., & Mohapatra, P. (2026) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2026.3675554 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
“ST-WebAgentBench is an online, enterprise-focused benchmark for testing whether web agents avoid unsafe actions (e.g., destructive operations in business systems) while pursuing goals [231].”
Gao, H.-A., Geng, J., Hua, W., Hu, M., Juan, X., Liu, H., Liu, S., Qiu, J., Qi, X., Wu, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.21046 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
ShieldAgent: Shielding Agents via Verifiable Safety Policy Reasoning
Chen, Z., Kang, M., & Li, B. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.22738 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
OpenAgentSafety: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Real-World AI Agent Safety
Vijayvargiya, S., Soni, A. B., Zhou, X., Wang, Z. Z., Dziri, N., Neubig, G., & Sap, M. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.06134
“…for AI [4] ✗ ✓ R-Judge [39] ✗ ✓ Trembling House [19] ✗ & ✗ AgentHarm [2] ✗ & ✗ WildTeaming [11] ✗ & ✗ SafetyPrompts [25] ✗ & ✓ ST-WebAgentBench [15] ✓ ✓ Frontier Models [18] ✓ ✓ SafeArena [31] ✓ & ✗ Haicosystem [46] ✗ & ✓ O PEN A GENT S AFETY (Ours) We introduce O PEN A GENT S AFETY (OA-S…”
Who Pays the Price? Stakeholder-Centric Prompt Injection Benchmarking for Real-world Web Agents
Wang, Z., Li, Y., Wu, Y., Chen, K., Liu, Z., Wai, F. K., Chen, P.-Y., Thing, V. L. L., Li, B., Tao, D., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.13385
- Authors
- Levy, I., Wiesel, B., Marreed, S., Oved, A., Yaeli, A., Mashkif, N., & Shlomov, S.
- Affiliations
- IBM (United States) (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2410.06703
- OpenAlex
- W4403363409
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web Data Mining and Analysis
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Access Control and Trust
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- benchmark, safety policy, user consent, robustness, relative risk, enterprise adoption, LLM agents
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
