The paper introduces Evidence Sufficiency Boundary Training, a framework that teaches models to abstain from answering until the supplied evidence is fully sufficient, and to remain stable when additional redundant evidence is added. By constructing ordered evidence chains from datasets such as HotpotQA, 2WikiMultiHopQA, and MuSiQue, the method applies level supervision, a boundary flip margin, post‑boundary stability, and answer recall protection. Experiments with Qwen2.5‑3B‑Instruct and LoRA adaptation show improved boundary localization (flip accuracy 0.807 vs 0.781) and a lower unsupported‑answer rate (0.095 vs 0.101) while maintaining competitive raw QA F1.
By Haruto Sato, Yuki Tanaka, Ren Nakamura, Aoi Kobayashi, Mei Ito
Grounded question answering systems should answer only when the supplied evidence supports the answer. In multi-hop QA, this requirement is difficult because partial evidence can make an unsupported a...
MOSAIC is a training‑free framework that adapts Graph Retrieval‑Augmented Generation (GraphRAG) to each query by converting query‑specific evidence needs into a bounded policy over seed selection, traversal, stopping, and evidence selection. It keeps the corpus graph, indexes, scoring, grounding, and answer generation shared, while an LLM analyzer tailors the exploration strategy per query. On GraphRAG‑Bench, MOSAIC improves answer correctness by over 5 points on Medical and 4 points on Novel, achieves high evidence recall and context relevancy, and reduces path and evidence evaluations compared to fixed policies.
By EunKyeong Lee, Kyeong-Jin Oh, Jinwon Kim, Hye Woo Lee, Minsang Song, Hyeongjun Jang, Junyoung Youn
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
The paper investigates whether incorporating an evidence-support signal into retrieval evaluation for retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG) improves downstream decision‑making. Across multiple benchmarks and a TREC RAG 2025 setting, the evidence signal alters retriever rankings but its benefits vary: it does not consistently enhance retriever training, its usefulness for system selection depends on generator instructions, and it does not reliably predict answer quality on unseen topics. Human filtering of evidence‑rich passages preserves useful content, yet evaluators disagree on whether this improves final answers, indicating that evidence‑aware evaluation alone does not guarantee better downstream outcomes.
By Utshab Kumar Ghosh, Debayan Mukhopadhyay, Shubham Chatterjee
The paper investigates why large language models (LLMs) miss evidence in multi‑hop retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG). It introduces ExecutionRAG, a training‑free register that tracks open sub‑questions and their supporting evidence, allowing the authors to distinguish between true retrieval failures and search drift. Using this method on 1,000 MuSiQue questions, the study shows a significant reduction in missed evidence but also reveals that other error types, such as premature resolutions and abstentions, increase, shifting the bottleneck from search guidance to evidence verification.
By Jiaqi Wei, Wenxuan Huang, Chengdong Xu, Xiang Zhang, Wanli Ouyang
The paper introduces RAG‑Stress, a diagnostic protocol that tests how retrieval‑augmented generation models handle misleading evidence. By fixing the question and reference answer, editing a single assertion to support an incorrect answer, and varying source‑priority policies and evidence positions, the study measures misleading rate (MR) and clean accuracy across fifteen systems on multiple QA datasets. Results show that prioritizing documents increases MR by 10.9–13.5 percentage points, with the highest MR when the misleading span appears at the end of the evidence.
By Shunyuan Zhou, Hao Chen, Tianyu Wang, Goose Lin, Zaiyuan Wang, Haiying Zhao
arXiv:2607. 24097v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Memory-augmented LLM agents typically answer queries by retrieving relevant memories and feeding them directly to an answer model.
By Yiwen Ma, Songjun Tu, Qichao Zhang, Dong Li, Linjing Li, Dongbin Zhao
arXiv:2512. 11614v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) relies on retrieved context to guide large language models (LLM), yet treats the retrieval as a heuristic rather than verifiable evidence -- leading to unsupported answers, hallucinations, and reliance on spurious context.
By Bj\"orn Deiseroth, Max Henning H\"oth, Kristian Kersting, Letitia Parcalabescu
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:2609.37443v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Long-term memory enables language models to use past interactions in future conversations. However, evidence needed to answer a question may be scatt...
By Yi-Xuan Deng, Yi Zhang, Wei Liu, Chao Xue, Shuojin Yang
The paper introduces matched trajectory replay, a protocol that fixes answer states, evidence points, budgets, and action costs to evaluate how confidence signals influence agent actions. Using this method, the authors compare raw verbalized confidence with post‑hoc isotonic calibration across six model‑dataset pairs, finding that calibration can significantly improve accuracy of committed answers but may reduce coverage and increase retrieval usage. The study concludes that calibration helps interpret commitment risk but does not predict the benefit of additional retrieval, indicating the need for separate value‑of‑information estimates.
By Prateek Chhikara