cs.CLSep 4, 2026

Better Together: Complementary Query Rewriting Under a Strong RAG Baseline

Authors: Sara Shanian, Xiaoqin Yi, Pavlo Ruban, Kurt MacDonald

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

A popular way to improve Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is to rewrite the user's question into several variants and search with all of them. We test whether this actually helps once the underlying search is already strong. Under one fixed, competitive pipeline (BGE dense retrieval, cross-encoder reranking, and MMR diversification), we compare four query-rewriting strategies (S1-S4) against two strong LLM baselines (HyDE, Query2Doc) on three datasets (HotpotQA, AmbigNQ, and the 512K-document EnterpriseRAG-Bench) over three seeds with paired-bootstrap significance tests. Our headline result is that rewriting alone is at best competitive with a strong baseline, but combining methods yields outsized gains because different strategies fail on different questions. A post-hoc union of four methods (S1+S3+S4+HyDE) improves HIT@10 over the baseline by +12.5 points on enterprise data (51.70 vs 39.22), and a five-method union reaches 52.98 (+13.8). Budget-matched controls capture only ~40% of this gain, confirming that complementarity, not retrieval budget, is the primary driver. On HotpotQA the union adds +1.6 to +1.8 points (p<0.001), saturating the all-method oracle; on AmbigNQ the same fusion hurts (-2.4 below the best solo, p<0.001), and we analyze when and why. Because rewriting is expensive, we evaluate in simulation a confidence-gated router that runs rewriting only when the baseline's own top-1 score is low. It captures about half of the enterprise full-merge gain (+4.3 HIT@10) while paying rewriting cost on <40% of queries, and automatically declines to rewrite on AmbigNQ. A downstream answer-quality evaluation confirms the router improves F1 by +1.92 (p<0.01) at roughly 40% of the expansion cost. In short: treat query rewriting as a complementary coverage source, applied through cost-aware routing, not as a standalone replacement for a strong baseline.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Apr 24, 2026cs.IR

Can QPP Choose the Right Query Variant? Evaluating Query Variant Selection for RAG Pipelines

Large Language Models (LLMs) have made query reformulation ubiquitous in modern retrieval and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipelines, enabling the generation of multiple semantically equivalent query variants. However, executing the full pipeline for every reformulation is computationally expensive, motivating selective execution: can we identify the best query variant before incurring downstream retrieval and generation costs? We investigate Query Performance Prediction (QPP) as a mechanism for variant selection across ad-hoc retrieval and end-to-end RAG. Unlike traditional QPP, which estimates query difficulty across topics, we study intra-topic discrimination - selecting the optimal reformulation among competing variants of the same information need. Through large-scale experiments on TREC-RAG using both sparse and dense retrievers, we evaluate pre- and post-retrieval predictors under correlation- and decision-based metrics. Our results reveal a systematic divergence between retrieval and generation objectives: variants that maximize ranking metrics such as nDCG often fail to produce the best generated answers, exposing a "utility gap" between retrieval relevance and generation fidelity. Nevertheless, QPP can reliably identify variants that improve end-to-end quality over the original query. Notably, lightweight pre-retrieval predictors frequently match or outperform more expensive post-retrieval methods, offering a latency-efficient approach to robust RAG.
Negar Arabzadeh, Andrew Drozdov, Michael Bendersky +1
Hievi-RagComplex Query Answering
AskPDF
Apr 19, 2026cs.CL

Align Documents to Questions: Question-Oriented Document Rewriting for Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enhances the factuality of Large Language Models (LLMs) by incorporating retrieved documents and/or generated context. However, LLMs often exhibit a stylistic bias when presented with mixed contexts, favoring fluent but hallucinated generated content over factually grounded yet disorganized retrieved evidence. This phenomenon reveals that the utility of retrieved information is bottlenecked by its presentation. To bridge this gap, we propose QREAM, a style-controlled rewriter that aligns retrieved documents with a question-oriented style while preserving facts, better for LLM readers to utilize. Our framework consists of two stages: (1) QREAM-ICL, which uses stylistic seeds to guide iterative rewriting exploration; and (2) QREAM-FT, a lightweight student model distilled from denoised ICL outputs. QREAM-FT employs dual-criteria rejection sampling, filtering based on answer correctness and factual consistency to ensure high-quality supervision. QREAM seamlessly integrates into existing RAG pipelines as a plug-and-play module. Experiments demonstrate that QREAM consistently enhances advanced RAG pipelines, yielding up to 8% relative improvement with negligible latency overhead, effectively balancing question relevance with factual grounding.
Jiaang Li, Zhendong Mao, Quan Wang +2
Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems
AskPDF
Jun 4, 2026cs.AI

Answer Presence Drives RAG Rewriting Gains

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 2828 to 6464 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+0.7 to +9.7+9.7 points in 1010 of 1212 (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+4.12~F1 ``non-leakage residual'' that flips to −3.33-3.33 to −7.81-7.81~F1 under four alternative sentinels and fails an equivalence test for three of those four (1/41/4~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.
Yuejie Li, Yueying Hua, Ke Yang +8
RewriteReadingRandom
AskPDF