arXiv AI

On-Device Deep Research at 4B: Exposure Bounds Faithfulness, Retrieval Bounds Coverage

arXiv:2607. 12257v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: On-device research agents search a corpus, read sources, and write a cited brief on a personal laptop.

arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 9

CiteVQA: Benchmarking Evidence Attribution for Trustworthy Document Intelligence

CiteVQA is a benchmark that evaluates multimodal large language models on both answering document questions and providing element‑level bounding‑box citations for the evidence used. It contains 1,897 questions across 711 PDFs in seven domains and two languages, with ground‑truth citations generated via an automated pipeline and strict quality control. The evaluation metric, Strict Attributed Accuracy (SAA), rewards a prediction only when both the answer and the cited region are correct, revealing widespread attribution hallucination in current models.

By Dongsheng Ma, Jiayu Li, Zhengren Wang, Yijie Wang, Jiahao Kong, Weijun Zeng, Jutao Xiao, Jie Yang, Bangrui Xu, Yuhan Wang, Bin Wang, Conghui He
arXiv Computation and Language
Nov 2

Better Retrievers, Worse Labels: How Incomplete Relevance Judgments Distort Abstention Evaluation in Conversational RAG

The paper investigates how conversational Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) benchmarks that rely on relevance judgments to determine context sufficiency can be misleading. By re‑running official baselines on the RETECO track and evaluating with both large‑language‑model judges and a blind audit, the authors show that stronger retrievers produce a higher proportion of contexts lacking gold documents yet still containing the answer, leading to a sharp drop in shortcut precision from 0.68 to 0.10. The study demonstrates that many false misses arise from hard negatives, gold content from other turns, or neighboring chunks, and that using retrieval scores alone as a sufficiency detector can underestimate answerability by up to 0.19 in AUROC.

By Ivan Kochergin, Vasily Konovalov
arXiv AI
Jul 24

Evaluating and Guarding Citation Faithfulness in Agentic Scientific Synthesis

arXiv:2607. 20527v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic LLM systems such as OpenScholar and PaperQA2 read the scientific literature and return cited answers, and both they and their benchmarks already check whether those citations hold, with a fixed attribution model or human graders.

By Taewan Goo, Junsik Kim, Kyulhee Han, GwonYul Jo, Jong-Soo Kim, Tae-Hyung Kim
arXiv AI
Oct 19

Optimist Deep Research: An Iterative, State-Centric Agent for Autonomous Literature Research

Optimist Deep Research is an open‑source agent that conducts literature research as an iterative, state‑centric process. It breaks a research question into a tree of subquestions, uses search intents to query multiple scholarly databases, and merges results into a provenance‑preserving document registry. The agent iteratively expands the registry via citation snowballing, evaluates evidence, and refines the research plan through a critic that can add, split, rephrase, deprioritize, or close subquestions, ultimately producing a report with every citation linked to a retrieved document.

By Gihan Panapitiya
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 22

Re:CAP - Auditing Retrieval Coverage in Production RAG Pipelines

Re:CAP is a reference‑free audit loop for retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG) pipelines that probes for missing documents instead of enumerating all relevant ones. It identifies covered topics, generates probing questions, retrieves candidate documents, and uses an LLM judge to keep only those that add new information. On several benchmarks, Re:CAP recovers a significant portion of gold documents that flat BM25 or hybrid retrieval misses, and human evaluation shows most of these documents add new information.

By Aviral Joshi, Hanoz Bhathena, Max Nelson, Saket Sharma