cs.CLJul 1, 2026

What Survives Into Context: A Diagnostic for Budget-Constrained Multi-Hop RAG and When Submodular Evidence Packing Improves It

Authors: Ananto Nayan Bala

Organizations: Ahsanullah University of Science and Technology

Abstract

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.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jun 29, 2026cs.IR

Know Before You Fetch: Calibrated Retrieval-Budget Allocation for Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) typically retrieves a fixed number of passages for every query. This is wasteful when the reader already knows the answer, and it can be harmful when irrelevant or partially relevant passages distract the reader. We formulate adaptive RAG as calibrated retrieval-budget allocation: given a query, decide whether to answer closed-book, retrieve a compact context (k=1), retrieve a full context (k=5), or abstain. The contribution is a probability interface rather than a new raw uncertainty signal. We calibrate sequence log-probability and prefix-logit uncertainty signals into probabilities of correctness, then use these probabilities for graded context selection, selective abstention, and explicit latency/token trade-offs. Across core QA experiments on TriviaQA, Natural Questions, and MS MARCO, with auxiliary PopQA motivation and Qwen/Llama family checks, diagnostic out-of-fold calibration improves probability quality dramatically: for sequence log-probability, ECE drops from 0.275 to 0.062 on TriviaQA, 0.643 to 0.009 on NQ, and 0.711 to 0.031 on MS MARCO. Graded retrieval improves full-context and passage-budget frontiers for both our signal and TARG-style prefix entropy/margin, while retrieval-call AUC remains essentially tied with binary gating because k=1 is still a retrieval call. Held-out train/validation/test threshold experiments report deployable operating points. At matched-accuracy frontier operating points, a measured cost model reveals that gating is not universally faster: it increases latency by about 27% on Qwen3-8B but saves about 8% on Qwen3-32B. These results support a nuanced view of adaptive RAG: calibrated confidence is best understood as a reusable interface for allocating retrieval budget under task and system constraints.
Zhe Dong, Fang Qin, Manish Shah +1
Retrieval-Augmented GenerationBudgetsPrompt
AskPDF
Jun 28, 2026cs.IR

Covering the Unseen: Information Demand Coverage Optimization for Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) typically treats context selection as ranking chunks against a single query embedding. This assumption breaks down for complex queries, such as multi-hop or ambiguous questions, where top-k selection tends to over-cover one semantic aspect while ignoring critical sub-questions. We propose GeoRAG, which recasts context selection as Information Demand Coverage Optimization. GeoRAG builds a multi-dimensional demand distribution through diverse sub-query generation and reverse-validation weighting, then selects context by minimizing the Sinkhorn-Wasserstein distance between this demand distribution and the coverage of the selected set. The resulting demand-weighted facility-location objective is monotone submodular, giving a 1−1/e1-1/e greedy guarantee, which we approximate with a Sinkhorn-based marginal-gain surrogate. The method is unsupervised, training-free, and retrieval-agnostic. We further show that single-point, query-proximity scorers cannot cover multi-modal demands, exposing a structural limit of ranking-based selection. On six open-domain QA benchmarks, GeoRAG improves exact match (EM) by +6.5 to +7.5 points over top-k truncation (up to +9.7 on HotpotQA and ASQA) and outperforms strong baselines including MMR, DPP, BGE-Reranker, SMART-RAG, and AdaGReS, with stable gains across context budgets and sub-query generators.
Bingxue Zhang, Jianying Jia, Feida Zhu
Retrieval-Augmented GenerationGeoquery
AskPDF
Jul 19, 2026cs.AI

Evidence Interfaces Shape How Retrieval-Augmented Readers Use Support

In multi-hop RAG evaluation, a top-k answer score can hide two different failures: the retrieval window may drop part of the support chain, or it may contain support in a form the adapted reader does not use well. We call this reader-facing form of retrieved evidence an evidence interface. Using three support-annotated multi-hop QA benchmarks, we compare matched adapted readers trained with raw context, retrieval windows, and gold-support diagnostic renderings. These comparisons distinguish support-availability failures from remaining reader-interface effects. Top-k windows become interpretable only after checking whether the complete annotated support chain survives: when it does, short ranked windows can match or improve over raw context; when it does not, missing support explains much of the loss. Gold support-first improves matched readers; on 2Wiki and MuSiQue, a support-supervised ranker raises coverage and recovers raw-context quality at lower prompt cost, while retaining gold headroom. Support-removal checks further show that the gains rely on exposed evidence, not only answer priors. On support-annotated evaluations, top-k answer scores should therefore be reported together with complete-support coverage.
Junchi Liao, Jiawen Deng, Fuji Ren
Hievi-RagRetrieval-Augmented GenerationReading
AskPDF