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
arXiv:2609.37469v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds large language models in external sources, but retrieved passages often name the right entities without...
By Suting Chen, Peichun Hua, Yunming Xiao
arXiv:2606. 24200v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) in clinical settings increasingly requires multilingual retrieval against predominantly English evidence corpora.
By Junhyeok Lee, Han Jang, Hyeonjin Goh, Kyu Sung Choi
arXiv:2606. 04646v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Many real-world questions over business, legal, and scientific corpora are natural-language versions of database-style queries over records latent in text.
By Mengao Zhang, Xiang Yang, Chang Liu, Tianhui Tan, Ke-wei Huang
arXiv:2607. 06641v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) achieve promising results on medical question answering benchmarks, yet their use in public health is constrained by hallucinations and the rapid evolution of official guidance.
By Felix Feldman, Joshua Harris, Timothy Laurence, Leo Loman, Ollie Higgins, Fan Grayson, Poonam Soma, Bethany Pace-Bonello, Michael Borowitz, Toby Nonnenmacher
The UIC-AIHealth4All system was presented for the ArchEHR-QA 2026 shared task on grounded question answering from electronic health records. It participated in evidence identification, answer generation, and answer‑evidence alignment, using an answer‑first pipeline that generates candidate answers with cited note sentences before classifying the full evidence set. The system ranked third in evidence identification, ninth in answer generation, and fifth in answer‑evidence alignment, and a linguistic analysis showed its outputs were harder to read than clinician‑authored references, highlighting the need for readability optimization in clinical NLP.
By Mohammad Arvan, Hossein Haeri, Natalie Parde, Rebecca T. Feinstein