Answer Presence Drives RAG Rewriting Gains

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.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems can respond incorrectly even when the correct passage was retrieved. The model must still read the retrieved passages and identify which one contains the answer among others that look relevant. This passage-reading model is called the reader. Does it fail simply because the context is longer or because the other passages genuinely compete with the correct one? We introduce and demonstrate a matched-control protocol for RAG reading: we keep the number and length of passages fixed, but replace hard competitors with less competitive real passages. We apply this control across two compact open models on SQuAD. This replacement partially restores performance, with the strongest effects on F1 and answer inclusion. For Phi-2, this recovers +6.0 EM points, +7.0 answer-inclusion points, and +0.057 F1. For Qwen2.5-1.5B, it recovers +4.5 EM points, +9.0 answer-inclusion points, and +0.068 F1. To track how performance changes as competitors accumulate, we also report retention curves and summarize them with a right-censored half-life when the curves do not cross half-retention. Together, these results show the protocol isolates a competition effect distinct from context length, though the effect is clearer for F1 and answer inclusion than for exact match, and also varies with snippet length.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) under a fixed reader-context budget forces a selection problem: of the evidence retrieved, only a fraction can be shown to the reader. We argue that document recall -- the standard retrieval metric -- is the wrong quantity to optimize in this regime, and we make two contributions. First, as a general contribution, we introduce answer-in-context, a diagnostic that measures whether a gold answer survives as a contiguous span in the packed reader context (not the retrieved set). It predicts answer F1 better than recall (r=0.39-0.55 vs. about 0.31), separates answer quality roughly five-fold (0.60 vs. 0.12 on HotpotQA), and carries information beyond retrieval: it adds Delta R squared=0.17 over recall and shows a 4.6x EM gap even among questions where all gold was retrieved. We also confirm it interventionally: on 2WikiMultiHopQA a packing change that raises coverage but not answer-in-context yields no accuracy gain. Second, as a conditional contribution, we cast reader-context construction as budgeted monotone submodular maximization and build a packer that jointly optimizes relevance, query coverage, representativeness, and diversity. On HotpotQA with a 160-token budget and a 3B reader it beats a strong focused heuristic, MMR, and naive packing -- by up to +5.1 F1 at equal-or-lower token cost, across three seeds. Crucially, we map the scope of this win honestly: it requires the conjunction of (i) multi-hop complementary structure, (ii) retrieval that surfaces the evidence, (iii) a binding but not extreme budget, and (iv) a reader weak enough that evidence density, not reading capacity, is the bottleneck. A quantization-controlled reader-scale ladder (3B to 7B to 14B) shows the edge over the heuristic is absorbed by 7B and significantly reverses by 14B, while the diagnostic explains every boundary with a single variable.