The paper investigates whether the object selected in a grounded language‑model pipeline actually reaches the reader, a failure that can break the handoff between stages. By auditing 600 HybridQA questions across three selector families, the authors find that exact key lookup and title matching recover the selected object in all 1,463 resolvable records, but body‑only BM25 omits it in 26.6% of cases at cutoff five, while hybrid retrieval with reranking omits it only 1.0%. The study also shows that misalignment between selected and retrieved objects can reduce exact match scores by up to 31 points, and introduces the Returned‑Object Profile (ROP) as a tool for reproducible auditing.
By Siddharth Vohra, Runmin Jiang, Xiaomo Li, Min Xu
AtomCite is an agentic framework that verifies and corrects page‑level citations in multi‑page documents by parsing answers into claims, checking each claim against the cited page image, and applying a deterministic repair policy. The authors introduce DocCite, the first benchmark for this task, built on MP‑DocVQA and DUDE, containing 928 injected instances and 1,909 verified natural errors. Across Gemini, Claude, and GPT models, AtomCite achieves about 93% verification accuracy and improves citation precision from 34% to 87‑90%, while also enhancing hallucination detection in open‑source models.
By Chen Qian, Yimeng Wang, Yu Chen, Lingfei Wu, Andreas Stathopoulos
The paper investigates why large‑language‑model coding agents rarely request a second chunk of tool output, focusing on the precision‑at‑1 rate ($p_1$) of the gold item appearing first in the first chunk. In a benchmark of 500 software‑engineering tasks, the authors compare six value functions and find that increasing $p_1$ does not systematically improve downstream accuracy; the agent can recover the correct answer from any position within the chunk. Adding file‑metadata signals to a keyword scorer actually reduces $p_1$, while a parameter‑free keyword scorer improves $p_1$ but still fails to boost overall accuracy.
By Tatiana Petrova, Andrei Mazniak, Radu State
arXiv:2606. 05633v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-augmented QA pipelines often route retrieved passages through an LLM \emph{rewriter} before a smaller reader, lifting F1 by tens of points on multi-hop benchmarks; this gain is typically credited to improved evidence quality.
By Yuejie Li, Yueying Hua, Ke Yang, Li Zhang, Yueping He, Yueping He, Ruiqi Li, Bolin Chen, Tao Wang, Bowen Li, Chengjun Mao
arXiv:2608. 06305v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation over long documents is dominated by one design: chunk the text, embed the chunks, and surface the top-k nearest neighbours of the query.
By Sagar Tamang, Ayush Vyas, Tabarakul Hazarika
arXiv:2604.27724v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Medical retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems typically operate on text chunks extracted from biomedical literature, discarding the rich vis...
By Xupeng Chen, Binbin Shi, Chenqian Le, Jiaqi Zhang, Kewen Wang, Ran Gong, Jinhan Zhang, Chihang Wang
arXiv:2608. 09393v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We identify and quantify temporal misgrounding: the systematic retrieval and citation of the currently in-force version of a legal article when the applicable version is an earlier or future one.
By Rose Cymbler, Daniel Guez, Laurent Fabre
arXiv:2608.29307v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Language models increasingly answer questions by consulting retrieved documents rather than memory alone, a design now common in search assistants an...
By Sai Krishna Reddy Mulakkayala, Niki van Stein, Aske Plaat
The paper introduces a penalty‑aware evaluation framework for Retrieval‑Augmented Generation (RAG) systems that uses asymmetric scoring, knowledge‑gap canaries, and a failure‑attribution pipeline. Applying this framework to three commercial RAG products and a baseline on SimpleQA‑Verified, the authors find that while overall accuracy is similar across systems, canary violation rates vary dramatically, showing that systems differ more in when they answer than in what they answer. The study demonstrates that penalty‑aware scoring can reorder system rankings and is robust across different penalty settings.
By Alden Do Rosario, Hussein Younes, Felipe Pires
arXiv:2607. 24781v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: RAG systems rely on chunking, which destroys structural information in documents.
By Ng S. T. Chong
arXiv:2609.00654v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: We describe the SciTrue team's participation in both subtasks of the NTCIR-19 SciClaimEval task~\cite{sciclaimeval}, which asks systems to verify scien...
By Qiming Bao, Ne\c{s}et \"Ozkan Tan, Siyuan Wang, Mark Gahegan
arXiv:2609.13268v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Annual reports, diligence packs, and infographic dashboards bury numbers in page images: axes, cell grids, and footnotes that OCR pipelines flatten and...
By Amirul Rahman, Aisha Karim, Kenji Nakamura, Yi-Fan Ng