Entropic Claim Resolution: Uncertainty-Driven Evidence Selection for RAG
Abstract
Current Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems predominantly rely on relevance-based dense retrieval, sequentially fetching documents to maximize semantic similarity with the query. However, in knowledge-intensive and real-world scenarios characterized by conflicting evidence or fundamental query ambiguity, relevance alone is insufficient for resolving epistemic uncertainty. We introduce Entropic Claim Resolution (ECR), a novel inference-time algorithm that reframes RAG reasoning as entropy minimization over competing semantic answer hypotheses. Unlike action-driven agentic frameworks (e.g., ReAct) or fixed-pipeline RAG architectures, ECR sequentially selects atomic evidence claims by maximizing Expected Entropy Reduction (EER), a decision-theoretic criterion for the value of information. The process dynamically terminates when the system reaches a mathematically defined state of epistemic sufficiency (H <= epsilon, subject to epistemic coherence). We integrate ECR into a production-grade multi-strategy retrieval pipeline (CSGR++) and analyze its theoretical properties. Our framework provides a rigorous foundation for uncertainty-aware evidence selection, shifting the paradigm from retrieving what is most relevant to retrieving what is most discriminative.
Figures & tables
| Subsystem | Role in the pipeline |
|---|---|
| AutoAdaptAgent + SchemaFeedbackLoop | Schema inference with dry-run calibration |
| GenericStore (EAV SQLite) | Item/attribute persistence; safe SELECT -only SQL execution |
| EmbeddingProvider + VectorIndex | 3-tier embeddings; LanceDB/NumPy backends; ID-filtered cosine search |
| ClaimExtractor + ClaimStore | Atomic claims + relations + temporal keys + dynamic confidence |
| EnsembleRetriever | Competitive retrieval + RRF fusion (Eq. 9 ) |
| EntropicClaimResolver | ECR loop: entropy, EER selection (Eq. 4 ) |
| Policy | Claims | /claim | Collapse | Redund. | HypCondRed. | SrcEnt | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retrieval-only | ||||||||
| ECR | ||||||||
| Random |
| Policy | /claim | Collapse | TraceVar | HypCondRed. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retrieval-only | ||||||
| ECR | ||||||
| Random |
| Method | Avg. Claims Used | Exact Match (EM) | Token F1 | Evidence Faithfulness |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline RAG | 19.87 | 0.313 | 0.459 | 0.639 |
| Random Control | 19.87 | 0.207 | 0.307 | 0.427 |
| ECR (ours) | 19.68 | 0.297 | 0.450 | 0.626 |
| Method | EM (No Noise) | Faith (No Noise) | EM (40% Noise) | Faith (40% Noise) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline RAG | 0.323 | 0.660 | 0.167 | 0.345 |
| ECR (ours) | 0.307 | 0.657 | 0.163 | 0.331 |
| Method | EM | OverconfErr | AmbExp | Mean | Stop Reason | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline RAG | 0.0 | 0.0067 | 0.9933 | 0.0000 | – | fixed_budget (300/300) |
| Baseline RAG | 0.3 | 0.0067 | 0.9933 | 0.0000 | – | fixed_budget (300/300) |
| Baseline RAG | 0.5 | 0.0067 | 0.9933 | 0.0000 | – | fixed_budget (300/300) |
| ECR (ours) | 0.0 | 0.0000 | 0.9900 | 0.0100 | 0.226 | epistemic_sufficiency (297/300) |
| ECR (ours) | 0.3 | 0.0067 | 0.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.496 | unresolved_conflict (300/300) |
| ECR (ours) | 0.5 | 0.0067 | 0.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.458 | unresolved_conflict (300/300) |
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| MeanClaims | Mean | MeanClaims | Mean | MeanClaims | Mean | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 5.04 | 0.226 | 5.06 | 0.226 | 5.08 | 0.226 |
| 0.01 | 5.04 | 0.226 | 25.83 | 1.496 | 29.81 | 1.458 |
| 0.025 | 5.04 | 0.226 | 25.83 | 1.496 | 29.81 | 1.458 |
| 0.05 | 5.04 | 0.226 | 25.83 | 1.496 | 29.81 | 1.458 |
| 0.10 | 5.04 | 0.226 | 25.83 | 1.496 | 29.81 | 1.458 |
Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Retrieval-augmented generation connects language models to external knowledge so answers can use current, domain-specific evidence.
See all 792 papers