Evidence Interfaces Shape How Retrieval-Augmented Readers Use Support

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.

Multi-hop question answering in retrieval-augmented gener?ation (RAG) often benefits from retrieving beyond the few candidates that will finally be read: narrow retrieval can miss an indispensable hop, while expanded retrieval introduces topical distractors. This challenge is not tied to a particu?lar knowledge-base format. Candidate pools may come from standalone retrievers, standard RAG backends, or graph-based retrieval pipelines. What is needed is a query-aware selection layer that can use relational structure to filter candidates be?fore generation. PAGE-RAG addresses this setting by using a graph as a temporary selection structure, rather than assum?ing a graph-structured knowledge base. It builds a query-local graph over retrieved candidates, records why candidates are connected, and treats each connection as a support hypothe?sis rather than support itself. We identify the resulting failure mode as a connectivity-support gap: connected candidates do not necessarily support the answer. We propose PAGE-RAG, a Provenance-Aware Graph Evidence promotion method that scores candidate paths with relevance, source-tracing meta?data, specificity, hubness, noise, and coherence signals, and applies minimal sufficient selection to promote supporting facts into a compact reader context. PAGE-RAG can serve as a complete retrieval-to-reading pipeline, and the same promo?tion stage can be inserted after existing retrieval or RAG sys?tems without replacing their upstream retrieval logic. Across three multi-hop QA benchmarks under the same final bud?get, PAGE-RAG improves support F1 and answer F1 by 10.4 and 3.3 points on a weighted average over a strong retriever. As a plug-in, PAGE-RAG further improves all reported RAG backends, including reasoning-oriented, compression-based, graph-based, and document/chunk-level systems.

Retrieval-augmented QA pipelines often route retrieved passages through an LLM \emph{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 \texttt{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-\texttt{[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.