arXiv:2606. 28337v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are often evaluated using final answer accuracy, even though their failures can originate from preprocessing, retrieval, context packing, or generation.
arXiv:2606. 29090v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become the standard way to ground large language models in external knowledge, yet most systems retrieve a fixed number of passages for every question regardless of its difficulty.
Clarify-Then-Search is a benchmark that tests whether large language models can ask clarification questions to improve the usefulness of deep search results. It uses 518 real-world query pairs from Baidu, where each intent query is paired with an underspecified version. The evaluation involves a clarifier asking up to three questions, a user answerer providing only explicit information, and a rewriter generating a new query that is then searched; performance is measured by a weighted nugget-recall score.
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become the standard way to ground large language models in external knowledge, yet most systems retrieve a fixed number of passages for every question regardless of its difficulty. This wastes computation on easy questions, starves hard ones, and gives no signal for when a generated answer can be trusted.
arXiv:2607. 25600v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation improves knowledge-intensive question answering, but indiscriminate retrieval can introduce irrelevant evidence and unnecessary computation.
arXiv:2607. 17742v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tables are a critical knowledge source in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), but a retrieved table may lack sufficient evidence to answer a query, a property we call answerability.
Retrieval-augmented generation improves knowledge-intensive question answering, but indiscriminate retrieval can introduce irrelevant evidence and unnecessary computation. We investigate whether verbalized confidence from black-box language models can serve as an actionable signal for retrieval routing.
The paper introduces the concept of LLM‑specific utility, defining it as the performance gain a target large language model (LLM) achieves when provided with a passage compared to answering without evidence. A benchmark of utilitarian passages is built for four LLMs (Qwen3‑8B/14B/32B and Llama 3.1‑8B) across three QA datasets, revealing that each model benefits most from its own tailored evidence and that evidence optimized for other models is consistently suboptimal. The authors also create SpecUBench, a benchmark for LLM‑specific utility judgment, and show that current utility‑aware retrieval methods largely capture model‑agnostic usefulness, struggling to estimate LLM‑specific utility. "whyItMatters":"The study demonstrates that retrieval‑augmented generation must consider model‑specific evidence selection to truly improve LLM performance, highlighting a gap in existing utility‑aware methods."
arXiv:2605. 06647v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented agents are increasingly the interface to large knowledge bases, yet most treat retrieval as a black box: they issue exploratory queries, inspect snippets, and reformulate until evidence emerges.
arXiv:2607. 04223v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) reduces but does not eliminate hallucination, and existing detectors return a single answer-level score that does not indicate which sentence is unsupported, or why.
arXiv:2606. 04646v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Many real-world questions over business, legal, and scientific corpora are natural-language versions of database-style queries over records latent in text.
arXiv:2606. 13550v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval augmented generation (RAG) depends critically on the quality and granularity of retrieved evidence.