More Context, Same Budget: Dual-Bounded Relational Recall Beyond Top-K Retrieval

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 retrieval must recover passages that provide sufficient evidence together. An initial passage often resolves an entity or relation implicit in the question, making the missing evidence easier to describe only after retrieval begins. Graph retrieval improves access to related evidence through stored corpus structure, but its retrieval signal is commonly derived from the original question. Complementary evidence must then be reached through stored relations even when an observed passage provides a more direct semantic cue. We introduce EviReform, which separates revising the retrieval request from aggregating evidence in the graph. Retrieved source passages formulate residual queries for the unresolved information need. The original and residual retrieval signals are normalized separately, combined, and propagated between propositions that share entities. On 2WikiMultiHopQA, HotpotQA, and MuSiQue, EviReform exceeds the strongest baseline by up to 5.59 Recall@5 points and 4.50 F1 points. These results show that observed evidence can guide graph retrieval toward the part of a supporting chain left underspecified by the original question. Code is available at https://github.com/XrazyMee/EviReform.

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.