Controllable Evidence Selection in Retrieval-Augmented Question Answering via Deterministic Utility Gating

Retrieval-augmented question answering depends on selecting evidence passages that jointly support answer generation. However, many RAG pipelines rely on top-$k$ ranking, where passages are selected mainly by individual relevance scores, even though multi-hop questions often require complementary evidence satisfying multiple information requirements. Recent LLM-based selectors address this by treating retrieval as set selection, but using an LLM for this intermediate stage can be costly and difficult to scale. In this work, we formulate evidence selection as a Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) problem. Given a question, candidate passages, and decomposed information requirements, our method constructs an energy function that balances relevance, requirement coverage, support strength, redundancy, complementarity, and compactness. Low-energy solutions correspond to compact evidence subsets that cover the needed requirements while avoiding unnecessary or repetitive context. The selected passages are then passed to a downstream language model for answer generation, separating combinatorial evidence selection from semantic answer generation. We evaluate the proposed QUBO selector on HotpotQA and compare it with LLM-based set selectors and non-LLM baselines including BM25, relevance top-$k$, maximal marginal relevance, hybrid lexical--semantic ranking, greedy coverage, and random selection. The QUBO selector achieves competitive exact-match and token-F1 performance relative to LLM-based selectors while providing a solver-compatible formulation for structured evidence selection. These results suggest that multi-hop evidence selection can be cast as discrete optimization, opening a path toward RAG pipelines where LLMs are reserved for semantic processing and answer generation, while context selection is handled by Ising/QUBO-compatible solvers.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds answers in retrieved passages, but retrieval is not verification: a passage can be topical and still fail to justify the answer. We frame this gap as evidence sufficiency verification for selective RAG answering: given a question, a candidate answer, and retrieved evidence, predict whether the evidence supports, refutes, or is insufficient, and abstain unless support is established. We present SURE-RAG, a transparent aggregation protocol built on the observation that evidence sufficiency is a set-level property: missing hops and unresolved conflicts cannot be detected by independent passage scoring. A shared pair-level claim-evidence verifier produces local relation distributions, which SURE-RAG aggregates into interpretable answer-level signals -- coverage, relation strength, disagreement, conflict, and retrieval uncertainty -- yielding a three-way decision and an auditable selective score. We evaluate on HotpotQA-RAG v3, a controlled multi-hop benchmark, under an artifact-aware protocol (shortcut baselines, counterfactual swaps, no-oracle checks, GPT-4o audits). Calibrated SURE-RAG reaches 0.9075 Macro-F1 (0.8951 +/- 0.0069), substantially above DeBERTa mean-pooling (0.6516) and a GPT-4o judge (0.7284), while matching a strong but opaque concat cross-encoder (0.8888 +/- 0.0109) with full auditability. Risk at 30% coverage drops from 0.2588 to 0.1642, a 37% reduction in unsafe answers. To deliberately probe the task boundary, we further contrast SURE-RAG with GPT-4o on HaluBench unsafe detection: the ranking reverses (0.3343 vs 0.7389 unsafe-F1), establishing that controlled sufficiency verification and natural hallucination detection are distinct problems.

Retrieval-augmented language models are expected to answer from the retrieved evidence, but in practice they often keep answering when that evidence is missing. We trace this behavior to the training signal: answer-focused fine-tuning assigns no target to unsupported contexts, so it cannot distinguish a reader that abstains from one that guesses, and unsupported answering stays near 100% even as supported accuracy improves. We introduce Regime Boundary Alignment (RBA), which trains a single reader on matched variants of the same question and gold answer. The reader is trained to produce the gold answer when the context supports it, including when conflicting evidence is also present, and to abstain when the correct support is removed; inference is ordinary decoding, with no verifier, threshold, or regime label. On three multi-hop QA datasets across three seeds, RBA reduces the unsupported-answer rate by more than sixty percentage points relative to conflict-focused training while matching its supported accuracy. On a held-out TriviaQA retrieval-miss slice, the same reader reduces unsupported answering from 100% to below 1% while also improving supported accuracy. These results indicate that evidence-gated answering must be learned on both sides of the support boundary.