arXiv Machine Learning

Does Faithfulness-Guided Alignment Hurt Accuracy? Unlocking Accurate and Faithful Post-Retrieval Reasoning

arXiv:2602. 01348v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can achieve strong answer accuracy on multi-hop questions, but outcome-level rewards often leave reasoning traces weakly grounded and difficult to audit.

arXiv AI
Jul 21

From Evidence to Trajectory: Abductive Reasoning Path Synthesis for Retrieval-Augmented Generation Agents Development

arXiv:2509. 23071v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) agent development is hindered by the lack of executable ground-truth agent-environment interaction trajectories.

By Muzhi Li, Jinhu Qi, Yihong Wu, Minghao Zhao, Liheng Ma, Yifan Li, Xinyu Wang, Zhenghan Tai, Zixing Song, Yingxue Zhang, Ho-fung Leung, Irwin King
arXiv AI
3d ago

Making LLMs Say What They Think: Measuring and Improving CoT-Interpretability Alignment

The paper introduces CoT-Interpretability Alignment (CIA), a metric that quantifies how well a large language model’s chain-of-thought (CoT) explanations match its internal reasoning processes. Evaluated on two-hop question answering, hint intervention, and integer multiplication across three LLMs, the study finds limited alignment (44.8–75.9%) and demonstrates that post‑training with a reward combining task accuracy and parametric faithfulness can substantially improve CoT faithfulness without sacrificing accuracy. The authors provide a framework for auditing CoT faithfulness and a pathway to making explicit reasoning more trustworthy, with code and data publicly available.

By Yihuai Hong, Shauli Ravfogel, Chen Zhao, Eunsol Choi
arXiv AI
Sep 3

PRO-Step: Step-level Process Reward Optimization for Retrieval-Augmented Generation

PRO-Step introduces a step‑level process reward optimization framework for Retrieval‑Augmented Generation (RAG) that evaluates both logical validity and evidential grounding at each reasoning step. By training a generative Preference‑Based Reward Model (PRM) and using PRM‑guided value tree search to create preference pairs, the method optimizes the policy through step‑level Direct Preference Optimization. Experiments on single and multi‑hop QA benchmarks show that PRO‑STEP achieves the best average EM and F1 scores across five datasets.

By MinKeon Kim, Namjun Lee, Jaekwang Kim
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 25

DynaKRAG: A Unified Framework for Learnable Evidence Control in Multi-Hop Retrieval-Augmented Generation

DynaKRAG is a unified framework that learns a state‑conditioned policy to control evidence acquisition in multi‑hop retrieval‑augmented generation. It uses a deterministic validity layer to build an action set, a learned continuation gate to decide between generating an answer or gathering more evidence, and an advantage scorer to rank evidence operations by predicted gain. Across HotpotQA, 2Wiki, and MuSiQue with various backbone models, DynaKRAG achieves top EM and F1 scores, improves token and retrieval efficiency, and enables terminal evidence compression that reduces context size while boosting answer quality.

By Chenyu Zhou, Yaqi Wu, Xiaolei Guo, Jiaqi Huang, Xianfa Zhang, Junxu Zhang, Zhuo Yu, Zhubo Shi, Jianghao Lin, Dongdong Ge
arXiv AI
Jun 9

Correct Is Not Enough: Training Reasoning Planners with Executor-Grounded Rewards

arXiv:2605. 03862v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has become a common way to improve explicit reasoning in large language models, but final-answer correctness alone does not reveal whether the reasoning trace is faithful, reliable, or useful to the model that consumes it.

By Tianyang Han, Hengyu Shi, Junjie Hu, Xu Yang, Zhiling Wang, Junhao Su
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 25

GTA-RAG: Graph-Trajectory-Augmented Reinforcement Learning for Multi-Turn Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning

arXiv:2608.22479v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) enables LLMs to access external knowledge for answering knowledge-intensive questions. For complex multi-hop quest...

By Jun Chen, Yongchao Liu, Pengyu Qiu, Jiajun Zheng, Juelu Zhang, Yujie Zeng, Qin Zhang, Ziyue Qiao, Xiao Luo
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 27

ReFIne: A Framework for Trustworthy Large Reasoning Models with Reliability, Faithfulness, and Interpretability

ReFIne is a training framework that augments large reasoning models with three trustworthiness properties: interpretability, faithfulness, and reliability. It combines supervised fine‑tuning with GRPO to produce structured, tag‑based reasoning traces, explicitly disclose decisive information, and provide self‑assessments of soundness and confidence. Applied to Qwen3 models, ReFIne improves interpretability by 44.0 %, faithfulness by 18.8 %, and reliability by 42.4 % on mathematical benchmarks.

By Chung-En Sun, Ge Yan, Akshay Kulkarni, Tsui-Wei Weng
arXiv Machine Learning
5d ago

Parameters vs. Context: TRACE Fine-Tuning for Robust Retrieval-Augmented Generation

The paper introduces TRACE, a fine‑tuning framework for Retrieval‑Augmented Generation (RAG) that addresses conflicts between retrieved knowledge and a model’s internal knowledge. TRACE uses multi‑agent debate traces to identify correct and incorrect candidates and answer‑shift patterns, providing fine‑grained supervision for reliable knowledge‑source selection. It also incorporates an answer‑completeness regularization mechanism to prevent empty, overly short, or prematurely terminated responses, thereby improving robustness against misleading retrieved content and enhancing answer quality.

By Zhengchen Huang, Yundong Sun, Minrui Song, Shuanglong Yao, Ye Liu, Ji Chen, Xing Wang
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 27

AB-RAG: Adaptive Budgeted Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Reliable Question Answering

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.