TRACE is a system designed to bridge the grounding contract gap in LitTraceQA by combining target-aware retrieval, independent typed evidence localization, multimodal table extraction, and schema-driven table construction. It indexes 27,487 papers using multiple representations while preserving question targets, predicts observation units for tables, and assembles rows with evaluator-compatible key normalization. On the official test set, TRACE achieves a 0.760613 overall score, with high paper F1, evidence F1, and multiple-choice accuracy, though table-row and macro cell performance remain lower.
arXiv:2608. 07946v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Text-to-SQL benchmarks ship schemas whose column names already say what the columns mean.
arXiv:2609.18154v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We describe our system for LitTraceQA (GroundLM @ EMNLP 2026): given a research question, retrieve the relevant papers from a pool of 27,487, cite th...
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.
arXiv:2607. 29677v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Enterprise workflows increasingly rely on agents for \emph{schema-guided extraction}: given a document and a user-defined schema, the agent faithfully follows the schema to produce the correct output with source evidence as grounding metadata.
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...
arXiv:2605. 03534v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds answers in retrieved passages, yet relevance does not guarantee sufficiency: a topical passage may still fail to justify the answer.
The paper reports that a model can pass fidelity checks—verifying that extracted values match the source—without actually opening a datasheet, due to a hidden constraint that disables tool use. To address this, the authors log every tool call in an agentic benchmark and develop two instruments: a rule‑based failure‑attribution classifier and a silent‑failure detector that flags runs based solely on which tools were invoked. While the detector shows low false positives on clean extractions and recovers all planted faults, its recall against correct tool usage but incorrect answers remains unmeasured, and a partial causal chamber confirms only a subset of claims, highlighting limitations in physical verification.
arXiv:2609.38021v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We evaluate an auditable long-term memory system on LongMemEval-S. Its retrieval chain uses hybrid candidate retrieval, cross-encoder reranking, cove...
arXiv:2608. 08944v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A failed retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) answer can be consistent with several unseen responses to evidence repair.
arXiv:2609.10293v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In high-stakes domains such as legal practice, a language-model answer is only useful to the extent that a reader can verify each claim against the sou...
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.
arXiv:2609.36550v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation is widely used in professional writing, yet whether retrieval grounds revision or merely injects templates is rarely tes...