ClueWeaver: Reward-Guided Dual-Agent Evidence Reasoning for Compact LLMs on Literary Long Narratives
Organizations: University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom · Institute of Information Engineering, CAS, Beijing, China · The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia · Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, United States
Abstract
Humanities and social science research requires close reading of long narrative materials such as novels, scripts, archives, and case reports, yet many users have limited access to costly proprietary long-context models. Compact, locally deployable language models are a practical alternative, but directly feeding them an entire long context remains costly, hard to inspect, and prone to missing sparse evidence. We present ClueWeaver, an evidence-aware dual-agent framework for long-narrative question answering with compact local models. A Finder identifies passages containing answer-critical clues through retrieval-guided segmentation, while an Interpreter derives the answer from the selected evidence, produces rationales with paragraph-ID citations, and applies an internal self-calibration pass for high-risk questions. Both agents are optimized with reward-guided reinforcement learning: Finder rewards emphasize evidence retention and faithful paragraph-ID references, and Interpreter rewards emphasize correctness, grounding, and concise explanations. This decomposition makes evidence selection and reasoning more inspectable than end-to-end prompting. Experiments across multiple long-context narrative question answering and claim verification settings show that ClueWeaver substantially improves local end-to-end language models while providing evidence coverage and paragraph-referenced reasoning traces. Code is available at https://github.com/Ameame1/ClueWeaver.
Figures & tables
| Method | DetectiveQA | Bench | LongBench v2 | NoCha | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| End-to-end reader (Local) | |||||
| Qwen3-4B-Instruct [ 31 ] | 36.5 | 50.7 | 38.5 | 49.5 | 44.5 |
| Qwen3-8B [ 31 ] | 45.2 | 56.5 | 26.9 | 55.0 | 49.7 |
| Ministral-3-14B [ 17 ] | 45.2 | 60.9 | 26.9 | 51.4 | 49.4 |
| GPT-OSS-20B [ 18 ] | 30.8 | 33.3 | 34.6 | 50.5 | 38.7 |
| Qwen3-30B-A3B [ 31 ] | 44.2 | 58.0 | 38.5 | 54.1 | 50.3 |
| Configuration | Acc. | |
|---|---|---|
| ClueWeaver (full) | 55.8 | – |
| w/o Interpreter | 51.0 | |
| w/o Finder | 50.0 | |
| w/o Finder & Interpreter | 36.5 |
| Setting | Overall Acc. | Access | Example GPU |
|---|---|---|---|
| End-to-end reader (Local) | |||
| Qwen3-4B [ 31 ] | 44.5 | 16GB | RTX 5060 Ti 16GB |
| Qwen3-8B [ 31 ] | 49.7 | 24GB | RTX 4090 / RTX 5090 |
| Ministral-3-14B [ 17 ] | 49.4 | 24GB | RTX 4090 / RTX 5090 |
| GPT-OSS-20B [ 18 ] | 38.7 | 24GB | RTX 4090 / RTX 5090 |
| Qwen3-30B-A3B [ 31 ] | 50.3 | 80GB | A100/H100 |
| Question. The reason why the robot doll was pushed downstairs is: (A) Break it for study (B) Eliminate clues (C) Hurt him (D) No particular purpose [Gold: B] |
|---|
| End-to-end reader selects the surface-level distractor: D |
| ClueWeaver keeps the decisive evidence and then self-calibrates the Interpreter output. |
| Finder (retained evidence from the log): YES segments include [1203], where the killer is described as wiping physical traces, and [1326], where Dr. Phil links this to pushing the robot doll downstairs. |
| Interpreter : <reason>Option (B) is supported by [1203], where the killer erases footprints, fingerprints, and dust traces; [1326] links this reasoning to why the robot doll was pushed downstairs.</reason> <answer>B</answer> |
| Interpreter : <reason>The two cited passages are consistent: [1203] establishes the motive of removing physical traces, and [1326] applies that motive to the pushed doll. Thus the answer is eliminating clues. </reason> <answer>B</answer> |
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Component | Purpose | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Format validity | Output must follow the required structured format and expose a decision and rationale. | |
| Positive decision | A gold-bearing segment should be kept by predicting YES . | |
| Paragraph-ID F1 | Reward overlap between predicted and gold paragraph IDs, using F1 over and . | up to |
| Compact ID bonus | Extra credit when the Finder references gold paragraphs without adding many irrelevant paragraph IDs. | |
| Correct rejection | A non-evidence segment should be rejected by predicting NO . | |
| Negative rationale quality | Reward non-trivial NO rationales with no paragraph ID and explicit irrelevance cues. | up to |
| Component | Purpose | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Format validity | Output must contain a parseable rationale and normalized answer field. | |
| Answer correctness | Reward the normalized final answer. Multiple-choice questions receive a larger gain than binary verification because their random baseline is lower. | MCQ; binary |
| Hard-case bonus | Additional reward for correctly solving examples marked as hard residual errors during training. | |
| Paragraph-ID use | Reward rationales that reference paragraph IDs from the supplied evidence. Invalid paragraph IDs are penalized when the allowed paragraph set is known. | |
| Rationale length | Encourage concise but non-trivial rationales rather than bare answers or long summaries. | |
| Specificity | Reward concrete grounding signals such as quoted phrases, numbers, or named entities from the evidence. |
| Agent Parameter | Finder | Interpreter |
|---|---|---|
| base model | Qwen3-4B | Qwen3-4B |
| algorithm | GRPO | GRPO |
| reward | evidence selection | answer grounding |
| lr | ||
| bs | ||
| grad_accum |
| Stage | Operation | Output |
|---|---|---|
| Retrieval anchors | Score paragraphs using dense retrieval and lexical matching. Select high-scoring paragraphs as anchors. | Candidate anchor paragraphs |
| Segment construction | Expand each anchor with nearby paragraphs and keep paragraph IDs. Add local windows to avoid missing surrounding context. | Ordered candidate segments |
| Finder selection | Predict YES / NO , cite paragraph IDs, and emit a brief rationale for each segment. | Clue-bearing segments and paragraph IDs |
| Evidence packing | Merge selected evidence, remove duplicates, retain nearby supporting paragraphs, and sort by original narrative order. | Compact evidence packet |
| Interpreter input | Combine , answer options when available, and packed evidence with paragraph IDs. | Grounded final-answer prompt |
| Dataset | Citation-bearing outputs | Valid cited IDs | All citations valid |
|---|---|---|---|
| DetectiveQA | 98/104 | 235/237 (99.2%) | 96/98 (98.0%) |
| Bench | 65/69 | 155/155 (100.0%) | 65/65 (100.0%) |
| LongBench v2 | 24/26 | 76/76 (100.0%) | 24/24 (100.0%) |
| NoCha | 88/111 | 219/222 (98.6%) | 85/88 (96.6%) |
| Overall | 275/310 | 685/690 (99.3%) | 270/275 (98.2%) |
| Type | Question | Prediction | Observation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed error | Henry’s wife Sylvia on his drug use situation. | Direct: C ; ClueWeaver: A ; Gold: A | The Finder retrieves distant paragraphs indicating that Sylvia did not know about Henry’s drug use, allowing the Interpreter to reject plausible but unsupported alternatives. |
| Regression | What was the cause of John Fairley’s death? | Direct: D ; ClueWeaver: A ; Gold: D | The selected evidence emphasizes a local suicide explanation and misses the option-specific detail needed to support the gold answer. |
| Unresolved | Tina says: “The cup is empty.” What does this mean? | Direct: C ; ClueWeaver: C ; Gold: A | The literal evidence about the empty cup is found, but both systems fail to map the symbolic statement to the intended narrative implication. |
Long-Context QA
Long-context question answering studies how models find, retain, and reason over evidence spread across lengthy documents and histories.
See all 39 papers