Learning Evidence Sufficiency Boundaries for Selective Answering in Grounded Multi-Hop QA

A central bottleneck in multi-hop Question Answering (QA) is that the granularity at which a question is expressed often differs from the granularity at which corpus evidence is retrievable. Existing methods address this mismatch by imposing fixed graph structures over the corpus, by iteratively reformulating the query, or by executing a generated program over it, but these strategies do not explicitly decide when a query unit is already supported by evidence and when it should be refined. We formulate this bottleneck as retrievable granularity discovery and introduce Hi-Q, an evidence-conditioned framework for hierarchical query refinement. At each query node, a resolution operator tests whether retrieved evidence supports the current query unit; resolved nodes terminate, while unresolved nodes are expanded by a dependency-preserving binary operator and checked by a semantic coverage verifier. Hi-Q therefore grows a query tree whose topology is determined by corpus support signals rather than by a fixed decomposition template or a pre-built graph. We evaluate Hi-Q on three multi-hop QA benchmarks, primarily under full-corpus retrieval, where dependent evidence must be located among open-domain distractors rather than within a small annotated pool. In this setting Hi-Q reaches 52.3 EM and 64.0 F1 averaged over the three benchmarks, ahead of the iterative retrieval baseline IRCoT by 15.1 EM / 18.2 F1 on that same average, and ahead of the graph-based RAG baseline PropRAG by 11.5 EM / 12.0 F1 on MuSiQue-full, without corpus-wide graph construction. In the restricted supporting/distractor setting used by prior work, Hi-Q likewise attains the best accuracy, with 57.9 EM and 69.3 F1 on average, ahead of PropRAG by 5.6 EM / 3.9 F1 and IRCoT by 13.7 EM / 15.8 F1. The project page is available at https://hi-q-project.github.io/.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds answers in retrieved passages, but retrieval is not verification: a passage can be topical and still fail to justify the answer. We frame this gap as evidence sufficiency verification for selective RAG answering: given a question, a candidate answer, and retrieved evidence, predict whether the evidence supports, refutes, or is insufficient, and abstain unless support is established. We present SURE-RAG, a transparent aggregation protocol built on the observation that evidence sufficiency is a set-level property: missing hops and unresolved conflicts cannot be detected by independent passage scoring. A shared pair-level claim-evidence verifier produces local relation distributions, which SURE-RAG aggregates into interpretable answer-level signals -- coverage, relation strength, disagreement, conflict, and retrieval uncertainty -- yielding a three-way decision and an auditable selective score. We evaluate on HotpotQA-RAG v3, a controlled multi-hop benchmark, under an artifact-aware protocol (shortcut baselines, counterfactual swaps, no-oracle checks, GPT-4o audits). Calibrated SURE-RAG reaches 0.9075 Macro-F1 (0.8951 +/- 0.0069), substantially above DeBERTa mean-pooling (0.6516) and a GPT-4o judge (0.7284), while matching a strong but opaque concat cross-encoder (0.8888 +/- 0.0109) with full auditability. Risk at 30% coverage drops from 0.2588 to 0.1642, a 37% reduction in unsafe answers. To deliberately probe the task boundary, we further contrast SURE-RAG with GPT-4o on HaluBench unsafe detection: the ranking reverses (0.3343 vs 0.7389 unsafe-F1), establishing that controlled sufficiency verification and natural hallucination detection are distinct problems.

Retrieval-augmented question answering depends on selecting evidence passages that jointly support answer generation. However, many RAG pipelines rely on top-$k$ ranking, where passages are selected mainly by individual relevance scores, even though multi-hop questions often require complementary evidence satisfying multiple information requirements. Recent LLM-based selectors address this by treating retrieval as set selection, but using an LLM for this intermediate stage can be costly and difficult to scale. In this work, we formulate evidence selection as a Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) problem. Given a question, candidate passages, and decomposed information requirements, our method constructs an energy function that balances relevance, requirement coverage, support strength, redundancy, complementarity, and compactness. Low-energy solutions correspond to compact evidence subsets that cover the needed requirements while avoiding unnecessary or repetitive context. The selected passages are then passed to a downstream language model for answer generation, separating combinatorial evidence selection from semantic answer generation. We evaluate the proposed QUBO selector on HotpotQA and compare it with LLM-based set selectors and non-LLM baselines including BM25, relevance top-$k$, maximal marginal relevance, hybrid lexical--semantic ranking, greedy coverage, and random selection. The QUBO selector achieves competitive exact-match and token-F1 performance relative to LLM-based selectors while providing a solver-compatible formulation for structured evidence selection. These results suggest that multi-hop evidence selection can be cast as discrete optimization, opening a path toward RAG pipelines where LLMs are reserved for semantic processing and answer generation, while context selection is handled by Ising/QUBO-compatible solvers.