Many questions about a book can only be answered by connecting passages chapters apart, such as a cough heard three times across a horse's life. We introduce CrossChapterQA, 1,853 such questions over 14 public-domain books. Each question lists the two to six chapters it needs (spanning half the book at the median) and the relation linking them, cites evidence from each, and has two independent reference answers graded blind. We use it to build LadderRAG, which indexes a book as passages, summaries and book-level cards for about $0.41 and answers a question for under a cent. Its first version failed mostly at retrieval. We redesigned it four times, steered by an LLM judge's verdicts and our analyses of failed answers: a design-level counterpart of RLAIF and RLHF in which feedback changes the architecture, not model weights. We also report the two redesigns that made answers worse. On the 191 questions its first version got wrong, the final version retrieves over twice as many required chapters on held-out books (recall 0.36 to 0.79), and ten annotators rate its answers 6.5/10 on average (764 ratings).
Figures & tables
Figure 1: A CrossChapterQA question about Black Beauty . The thread joins the three chapters where Ginger’s cough is heard. v1 retrieved six passages from five other chapters ( × ), two of them about another character’s cough, and answered about the wrong character. v4b retrieved all three required chapters (dark green) among its passages.
Figure 2: CrossChapterQA questions as threads. (a) Each grey arc joins two chapters that one Black Beauty question requires; four questions of different relation types are highlighted, one of them the cough of Figure 1 . (b) For all 1,853 questions, the distance between the first and last required section as a share of the book: answering usually means connecting parts of a book that lie far apart.
Relation type : what the answer must connect
n
Recurring device : a thing, phrase or event that returns, and what changes between returns
360
Setup and payoff : an early detail and the later scene that pays it off
317
Arc : how something develops across three or more stages
240
Local element, global function : a small detail and its larger role elsewhere
209
Document-wide technique : a narrative technique and its instances across the book
201
Framing symmetry : two scenes that mirror or contrast
187
Table 1: Relation types in CrossChapterQA (1,853 questions).
Figure 3: LadderRAG at a glance. (A) Each book is indexed once, in four steps, into a ladder with three levels: passages (L1), section summaries (L2) and five book-level cards (L3). (B) The final version answers in four steps: it plans the question, finds evidence for each part among the passages, adds the book-level context, and answers in a single call (retrying with more passages if a part is missing). The coloured tags show which level of the ladder each step reads. (C) How v4b came about: each version answered the development questions, an AI judge flagged wrong answers, we analysed the failures, and the design changed (§ 5 ).
Figure 4: The redesign trajectory on the development book. Retrieval (top) improved almost every round, but answers (bottom, share flagged by the AI judge) did not follow: v3 and v4 retrieved more and answered worse. Below each version: cost per answer.
Feedback that led to the version
Design change
Flagged ↓
Rev. ↑
Recall ↑
None ↓
$/ans.
v1
(first version)
router picks one route; one similarity ranking per route
28/79
1/13
0.34
37
0.0029
v2
AI judge and diagnostics: questions linking distant chapters routed as local; passages crowded into one chapter; two-part questions searched as one string
planner routes by the scope an answer needs; up to 3 sub-queries fused by RRF; at most 2 passages per chapter
17/78
5–7/13
0.52
16
0.0033
v3
Our review of 12 answers: a scene with the right words but the wrong event; first and last swapped; another character’s story credited to the narrator; categories merged; “three times” answered from one chapter
constraint planner; stemmed BM25, rare-word lookup, position masks; a verifier that can reject passages; “not found” allowed
31/78
6/13
0.69
4
0.0161
v4
AI judge: the verifier vetoed correct evidence. Our review of 13 answers: wrong anchor passage (8 of 13); objects read as symbols; one hop where two were asked; characters lost across renames
literal anchors from the question’s own words; names via the characters card; reserved slots per part; a checklist in one answer call; one retry with 14 passages
24/79
8/13
0.72
4
0.0050
v4b
AI judge: 13 answers that v2 had right went wrong: interpretive questions without book-level context; back-references and speakers
restore v2’s cards and summaries; rules for back-references and speakers
17/80
8/13
0.71
7
0.0053
Table 2: The redesign loop on the development book (80 Black Beauty questions). Each row gives the feedback that prompted a version, the change made, and the result. Flagged : answers the AI judge found completely different from the reference, over the questions it gave a verdict on (35%, 22%, 40%, 30%, 21%). Rev. : of the 13 questions we analysed by hand, those not flagged (v2 was judged twice). Recall : mean location recall. None : questions with no required section retrieved.
Figure 5: Human scores for v4b’s answers to the 191 questions v1 answered wrongly, by the rubric’s score bands (mean in brackets). “Pool member” scores come from pool A or B, depending on the book; the panel is pool C. Numbers inside the bars are percentages.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Book
Words
Sections
Questions
Sampled
v1 flagged
Human mean
Black Beauty (development)
59,886
49
254
80
13
7.11
The Call of the Wild
31,833
7
88
80
9
6.33
A Christmas Carol
29,975
5
79
79
8
7.77
The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes
87,063
11
120
80
25
6.54
The Return of Sherlock Holmes
112,336
13
122
80
13
6.49
The Hound of the Baskervilles
59,193
15
130
80
6
6.99
Appendix
Table 3: The 14 books. Sampled : questions answered by v1. v1 flagged : v1 answers judged completely different, which v4b then answered for human scoring. Human mean : mean of the four scores over those answers.
Figure 6: What CrossChapterQA asks. (a) Questions per relation type. (b) Distance between the first and last required section, as a share of the book. (c) Number of required sections per question.
Figure 7: v1 on the 1,119 sampled questions. (a) Share of answers the screening judge flagged, by relation type. (b) How many of a question’s required sections v1 retrieved, for flagged and unflagged answers. (c) Flag rate by the route v1’s router chose (number of questions in brackets).
Relation type
Book
Question
Requires
Setup and payoff
Black Beauty
Which wish of the worn-out mare does the narrator afterwards repeat as his own?
Ch. 40, 47
Recurring device
The Hound of the Baskervilles
How does a black beard recur as a false clue?
Ch. IV, V, VII
Arc
The Call of the Wild
How do the dog’s masters range from fair to fatal to ideal?
Ch. 1, 5, 6
Local element, global function
The Sign of the Four
Why does the detective bother to have a green lamp removed from a boat?
Ch. VIII, IX, X
Document-wide technique
The Railway Children
How does the keeping and breaking of secrets organise the book?
Ch. I, VI, XI, XIII, XIV
Framing symmetry
The Invisible Man
How is the hidden face of the opening matched at the close?
Ch. I, XXVIII
Appendix
Table 4: One CrossChapterQA question of each relation type. Questions describe scenes by their content and never name the sections they need.
Stage
Model (reasoning effort)
Situating sentences
gpt-5-mini (minimal)
Summaries, all tiers
gpt-5-mini (medium)
Book-level cards
gpt-5-mini (high)
Router (v1), planner (v2)
gpt-5-nano (low)
Planners (v3, v4, v4b)
gpt-5-mini (low)
Verifier (v3), answers
gpt-5-mini (medium)
Appendix
Table 5: Models used at each stage. Situating sentences for two books were made at gpt-5-mini’s default effort before we set it to minimal.
Pair
Pearson r
Spearman ρ
QW κ
Member 1 – Member 2
0.28
0.31
0.28
Member 1 – Member 3
0.35
0.43
0.26
Member 1 – Panel
0.57
0.60
0.24
Member 2 – Member 3
0.36
0.42
0.24
Member 2 – Panel
0.47
0.51
0.18
Member 3 – Panel
0.78
0.79
0.64
Appendix
Table 6: Pairwise agreement over the 191 answers. QW κ : quadratic-weighted kappa over the rubric’s eight bands.
Figure 8: Human scores for v4b’s 191 answers. (a) Mean of the four scores against v4b’s location recall (jittered); bars mark the mean for answers that found fewer than half, at least half, or all of their required sections. (b) Mean score by relation type, with bootstrap 95% confidence intervals.
Metric
v1 vs. refs.
Ref. vs. ref.
ROUGE-1
0.26
0.28
ROUGE-2
0.05
0.06
ROUGE-L
0.16
0.20
BERTScore F1
0.08
0.15
Embedding cosine
0.62
0.54
Appendix
Table 7: Overlap between v1’s 1,119 answers and the two references (mean over the references), and between the two references. ROUGE uses F-measures with stemming, BERTScore uses roberta-large with baseline rescaling ( Zhang et al., 2020 ) , and the embedding is all-mpnet-base-v2.
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems that answer questions from document collections face compounding difficulties when high-precision citations are required: flat chunking strategies sacrifice document structure, single-query formulations miss relevant passages through vocabulary mismatch, and single-pass inference produces stochastic answers that vary in both content and citation selection. We present KohakuRAG, a hierarchical RAG framework that preserves document structure through a four-level tree representation (document → section → paragraph → sentence) with bottom-up embedding aggregation, improves retrieval coverage through an LLM-powered query planner with cross-query reranking, and stabilizes answers through ensemble inference with abstention-aware voting. We evaluate on the WattBot 2025 Challenge, a benchmark requiring systems to answer technical questions from 32 documents with ±0.1% numeric tolerance and exact source attribution. KohakuRAG achieves first place on both public and private leaderboards (final score 0.861), as the only team to maintain the top position across both evaluation partitions. Ablation studies reveal that prompt ordering (+80% relative), retry mechanisms (+69%), and ensemble voting with blank filtering (+1.2pp) each contribute substantially, while hierarchical dense retrieval alone matches hybrid sparse-dense approaches (BM25 adds only +3.1pp). We release KohakuRAG as open-source software at https://github.com/KohakuBlueleaf/KohakuRAG.
Shih-Ying Yeh, Yueh-Feng Ku, Ko-Wei Huang +1
National Tsing Hua University · Comfy Org Research · Kohaku-Lab
GraphRAG extends retrieval-augmented generation by organizing corpora as explicit knowledge graphs, enabling graph-based retrieval for complex question answering. However, existing frameworks extract entities and relations within individual chunks, leaving cross-chunk relations -- those whose evidence spans multiple passages -- systematically absent from the index. Exhaustive LLM-based recovery of such relations is impractical due to the combinatorial explosion of chunk combinations. We present CrossAug, a GNN-guided CROSS-Chunk Graph AUGmentation method that enriches GraphRAG indices with cross-chunk relational structure as an offline step before query-time retrieval. CrossAug derives training supervision through self-supervised graph corruption, uses a topology-aware GNN to score subgraphs for missingness, and applies evidence-grounded LLM completion only to selected high-scoring regions. Experiments on three LLM-based GraphRAG frameworks across four multi-hop and long-document QA benchmarks demonstrate that CrossAug consistently improves performance, confirming the benefit of cross-chunk graph augmentation for retrieval-based question answering. Our code is available at https://github.com/DonFinliani/CrossAug.
Jiaming Zhang, Yibo Zhao, Jing Yu +2
School of Data Science and Engineering, East China Normal University
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds language models in external corpora. Agentic RAG enables iterative search, yet exposes the model to isolated chunks without document structure, making it difficult to distinguish relevant evidence from chunks that merely resemble the query. Structure-aware methods such as PageIndex navigate document structure but cannot scale to the structures of large corpora, which do not fit in the LLM context. Hence, they first commit to a single document using a document retriever and cannot recover from a wrong choice. We propose RIT-RAG (Retrieval-Induced Tree RAG), which combines content retrieval with structural navigation. Offline, RIT-RAG builds a tree for each document from its table of contents or sitemap. At query time, it retrieves a broad set of chunks and uses their positions to induce manageable sub-trees, potentially across multiple documents. An LLM agent navigates these sub-trees, selectively reads promising nodes, and reformulates queries when needed. Thus, retrieval proposes where to look, while the agent decides what to read. Across financial, scientific, and customer-support benchmarks, RIT-RAG achieves the highest answer accuracy among vanilla, graph-based, and agentic baselines. On EntQABench, our new benchmark of 2.84 million technical-documentation webpages, it improves accuracy by 6.8 to 11.4 points over the strongest baseline across three LLMs.