Not All Queries Need Rewriting: When Prompt-Only LLM Refinement Helps and Hurts Dense Retrieval

A popular way to improve Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is to rewrite the user's question into several variants and search with all of them. We test whether this actually helps once the underlying search is already strong. Under one fixed, competitive pipeline (BGE dense retrieval, cross-encoder reranking, and MMR diversification), we compare four query-rewriting strategies (S1-S4) against two strong LLM baselines (HyDE, Query2Doc) on three datasets (HotpotQA, AmbigNQ, and the 512K-document EnterpriseRAG-Bench) over three seeds with paired-bootstrap significance tests. Our headline result is that rewriting alone is at best competitive with a strong baseline, but combining methods yields outsized gains because different strategies fail on different questions. A post-hoc union of four methods (S1+S3+S4+HyDE) improves HIT@10 over the baseline by +12.5 points on enterprise data (51.70 vs 39.22), and a five-method union reaches 52.98 (+13.8). Budget-matched controls capture only ~40% of this gain, confirming that complementarity, not retrieval budget, is the primary driver. On HotpotQA the union adds +1.6 to +1.8 points (p<0.001), saturating the all-method oracle; on AmbigNQ the same fusion hurts (-2.4 below the best solo, p<0.001), and we analyze when and why. Because rewriting is expensive, we evaluate in simulation a confidence-gated router that runs rewriting only when the baseline's own top-1 score is low. It captures about half of the enterprise full-merge gain (+4.3 HIT@10) while paying rewriting cost on <40% of queries, and automatically declines to rewrite on AmbigNQ. A downstream answer-quality evaluation confirms the router improves F1 by +1.92 (p<0.01) at roughly 40% of the expansion cost. In short: treat query rewriting as a complementary coverage source, applied through cost-aware routing, not as a standalone replacement for a strong baseline.

Embedding-based code retrieval often suffers when encoders overfit to surface syntax. Prior work mitigates this by using LLMs to rephrase queries and corpora into a normalized style, but leaves two questions open: how much representational shift helps, and when is the per-query LLM call justified? We study a hierarchy of three rewriting strategies: stylistic rephrasing, NL-enriched PseudoCode, and full Natural-Language transcription, under joint query-corpus (QC, online) and corpus-only (C, offline) augmentation, across six CoIR benchmarks, five encoders, and three rewriters spanning independent model families (Qwen, DeepSeek, Mistral). We are the first to evaluate NL-enriched PseudoCode and snippet-level Natural Language as direct retrieval representations, rather than as transient intermediates. Full NL rewriting with QC yields the largest gains (+0.51 absolute NDCG@10 on CT-Contest for MoSE-18), while corpus-only rewriting degrades retrieval in 56 of 90 configurations, about 62%. We introduce two diagnostics, Delta H, token entropy, and Delta s, embedding cosine, and show that Delta H predicts retrieval gain under QC across all three rewriter families: pooled Spearman rho = +0.436, p < 0.001 on DeepSeek+Codestral; rho = +0.593 on Codestral alone; rho = +0.356 on Qwen. This establishes Delta H as a cheap, rewriter-agnostic proxy for deciding when rewriting pays off before running retrieval. Our analysis reframes LLM rewriting as a cost-benefit decision: it is most effective as a remediation layer for lightweight encoders on code-dominant queries, with diminishing returns for strong encoders or NL-heavy queries.

Retrieval-augmented QA pipelines often route retrieved passages through an LLM rewriter before a smaller reader, lifting F1 by tens of points on multi-hop benchmarks; this gain is typically credited to improved evidence quality. We ask whether that lift is causally driven by the gold answer string appearing in the rewritten context rather than by curation per se, using a controlled intervention audit. For each rewritten context we re-run the reader after one of four controlled edits to the compile output: removing the gold answer span, replacing a length-matched random non-answer span (placebo), or injecting the gold into rewrites where it was absent (at the prefix or at a midpoint sentence boundary). Across twelve completed (cell, baseline) intervention runs spanning three reader families (Qwen2.5-7B, Qwen3.5-35B, GLM-4.7), two datasets (HotpotQA, 2WikiMultihopQA), and three compiler arrangements (MA-only, MB-only, MA$+$verify), removing the gold answer drops reader F1 by $28$ to $64$ points beyond the length-matched placebo on paired answer-in-compile strata, and prepending the gold into rewrites that lacked it raises F1 by $+0.7$ to $+9.7$ points in $10$ of $12$ (cell, baseline) combinations. A companion five-sentinel audit shows the conventional single-[MASK] probe is itself sentinel-fragile: on 2Wiki it reports a $+4.12$~F1 ``non-leakage residual'' that flips to $-3.33$ to $-7.81$~F1 under four alternative sentinels and fails an equivalence test for three of those four ($1/4$~pass). We do not propose a new rewriter or mitigation; we release the intervention runner and the sentinel panel so that other rewriter-gain claims can be tested against the same standard.