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
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...
By Josepha Michiko Leo, Hyun-seok Min, Yehoon Jang, Irvan Zidny, Jin-Woo Chung, Sungchul Choi
arXiv:2607. 09328v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Answering complex questions over long documents frequently requires integrating evidence that the source itself disperses naturally across distant passages.
By Zixin Chen, Peng Liu, Haobo Li, Rui Sheng, Jianhong Tu, Xiaodong Deng, Fei Huang, Kashun Shum, Dayiheng Liu, Huamin Qu
arXiv:2607. 09328v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Answering complex questions over long documents frequently requires integrating evidence that the source itself disperses naturally across distant passages.
By Zixin Chen, Peng Liu, Haobo Li, Rui Sheng, Jianhong Tu, Xiaodong Deng, Fei Huang, Kashun Shum, Dayiheng Liu, Huamin Qu
arXiv:2607. 23006v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scientific question answering requires a retrieval system to solve two distinct problems: identifying which papers are relevant and locating the supporting evidence within those papers.
By Xinyan Zhong, Yuwei Shi, Yuqi Wei, Chen Shen, Tianhang Zhou, Zhenghao Wu
The paper introduces Narrative Consolidation, a new NLP task that aims to merge overlapping narrative documents—such as legal testimonies or historical accounts—into a single, chronologically coherent text, rather than merely compressing them. It defines the task, proposes an evaluation framework, and presents the Gospel Consolidation Language Resource, a benchmark built from the four Biblical Gospels with 169 canonical events and cross‑document alignments. Experiments show that providing an explicit temporal backbone dramatically improves performance, a simple length heuristic outperforms graph‑based methods, and temporal edges are the key discriminative signal.
By Roger A. Finger, Eduardo G. Cortes, Sandro J. Rigo, Gabriel de O. Ramos
arXiv:2604. 19047v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Existing QA benchmarks typically assume distinct documents with minimal overlap, yet real-world retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems operate on corpora such as financial reports, legal codes, and patents, where information is highly redundant and documents exhibit strong inter-document similarity.
By Hanjun Cho, Jay-Yoon Lee
arXiv:2608. 16185v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM agents increasingly answer questions over dynamic raw-document collections, where files may change before preprocessing, and relevant evidence (spans, sections, pages, or tables) is query-dependent.
By Xingjun Wang, Gongsheng Li, Qi Fan, Yunlin Mao, Luyan Su, Yingda Chen
arXiv:2606. 01542v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Chunked-document retrieval is a common component of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems.
By Nataraj Agaram Sundar, Tejas Morabia
The paper audits a 366‑day autobiographical book generated by a large language model (LLM) against an independent verification corpus. Using a four‑level rubric, 354 of the 366 days (96.7%) failed verification, with only 12 days containing corroborated scenes and 19 days containing actively contradicted claims. Regenerating the same days with current models yielded 100% verification failure, while grounding the generation in the subject’s own corpus improved the rate to 83.3% but still left substantial residual failure.
By Heather Renze
The paper introduces EquiReview‑R, an AI‑assisted review system that treats omission and over‑critique as distinct risks and refines a structured concern set using evidence‑linked reasoning. It demonstrates that more criticism does not guarantee a better review, showing that many high‑recall reviews lack definitive evidence for concerns and that revision before further search is essential. On a held‑out set of papers, EquiReview‑R meets non‑inferiority for major omission, cuts major over‑critique from 15.5 % to 8.1 %, and stops on 52.4 % of papers, with gains attributed to revision rather than extra inference.
By Zexing Zhang, Jichao Li, Tianyang Lei, Yude Fu, Yang Kewei
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...
By Aaditya Chauhan