BELIEFRAG: Making Adaptive RAG State-Aware under Evolving Evidence

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) remains brittle on multi-hop questions in realistic deployment settings, where retrieved evidence may be noisy or redundant and only limited context can be passed to the generator. Existing controllers address parts of this problem, but typically either expand context additively, select from a fixed top-k set, or optimize relevance without explicitly repairing missing bridge facts. We propose AdaGATE, a training-free evidence controller for multi-hop RAG that frames evidence selection as a token-constrained repair problem. AdaGATE combines entity centric gap tracking, targeted micro-query generation, and a utility based selection mechanism that balances gap coverage, corroboration, novelty, redundancy, and direct question relevance. We evaluate AdaGATE on HotpotQA under clean, redundancy, and noise injected retrieval conditions. Across all three settings, AdaGATE achieves the best evidence F1 among the compared controllers, reaching 62.3% on clean data and 71.2% under redundancy injection, while using 2.6x fewer input tokens than Adaptive-k. These results suggest that explicit gap-aware repair, combined with token-efficient evidence selection, improves robustness in multi-hop RAG under imperfect retrieval. Our code and evaluation pipeline are available at https://github.com/eliguo/AdaGATE.

Multi-hop retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) acquires evidence sequentially, with each new document potentially revealing missing facts, bridge entities, query defects, or sufficient support for answering. Existing methods provide useful operations such as iterative retrieval, query reformulation, evidence critique, and sufficiency judging, but typically organize them within method-specific pipelines or predefined control topologies. This leaves underexplored how to learn a shared state-conditioned policy that chooses among currently valid evidence operations. We introduce DynaKRAG, which formulates multi-hop evidence acquisition as state-conditioned control over atomic evidence operations. At each step, a validity layer constructs the executable action set, and a learned controller selects the next operation. The resulting transition updates the evidence state and may enable new operations at subsequent steps. With Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, DynaKRAG achieves F1 scores of 0.5998 on HotpotQA, 0.5340 on 2Wiki, and 0.3061 on MuSiQue, outperforming the strongest controlled baseline on all three benchmarks. Replacing the learned controller with a uniform-valid policy reduces F1 by 3.96--5.78 points, while removing sufficiency feedback hurts all three datasets. Controlled retrieval-cap experiments further show that additional retrieval is not uniformly beneficial. Together, these results demonstrate the benefit of coordinating retrieval, diagnosis, and gap-directed acquisition under an evolving evidence state.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become the standard way to ground large language models in external knowledge, yet most systems retrieve a fixed number of passages for every question regardless of its difficulty. This wastes computation on easy questions, starves hard ones, and gives no signal for when a generated answer can be trusted. With a growing share of question answering systems built on top of commercial language model APIs, a method that can decide how much to retrieve, and how far to trust its own answers, without retraining the underlying model, is of clear practical value. This paper presents AB-RAG (Adaptive Budgeted Retrieval-Augmented Generation), a training-free and backbone-agnostic framework that generates an answer, estimates its confidence from a combination of three signals, and then decides whether to stop or to retrieve more evidence, subject to a fixed retrieval budget. The estimator combines the model's own certainty, the agreement between the answer and the evidence, and the variance of the retrieval scores. For models that expose token probabilities the certainty signal is read directly; for closed APIs it is approximated by self-consistency, so the method works without access to model internals. Across three backbones and two datasets, the central result is that the confidence estimate reliably separates correct from incorrect answers on every backbone, reaching a clean split of 57.6% against 0% Exact Match between high- and low-confidence answers on a factoid dataset. The adaptive policy improves accuracy on capable backbones, and the study reports its negative and nuanced findings honestly, including a confidence signal that proved unsuitable for short answers and a retrieval signal whose sign was found and corrected through measurement. The entire study was carried out on a single consumer laptop with only a few dollars of API spend.