Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.08944

What Would Fix This RAG Failure? Auditing Counterfactual Response with Paired Evidence Interventions

Wenzhang Du
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A failed retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) answer can be consistent with several unseen responses to evidence repair. We introduce Pair-ID, an offline audit that holds one query, retrieval state, and reader constant, then crosses two operations, adding missing support and deleting verified nonsupport, to measure a same-failure counterfactual response vector. A complete funnel over 19,981 benchmark queries identifies 11,105 eligible Qwen failures, from which a prospectively fixed SHA-256 ordering selects 1,200 before generating any sampled response. Among 1,190 regenerated-valid failures, support addition repairs 197/600 JOINT cases (0.328, 95% CI [0.292, 0.367]), and deletion repairs 162/1,190 cases (0.136, 95% CI [0.117, 0.155]); length- and position-matched shams retain semantic contrasts of 0.223 and 0.101. The original view carries partial predictive signal for individual response cells (macro AUROC 0.678; Brier 0.152 versus 0.160 for a marginal baseline), but exact-vector accuracy, 0.637, does not exceed the 0.646 majority-vector baseline, and vector macro-F1 is 0.170. Across four readers, both marginal sensitivities recur, while pooled exact-vector agreement is 0.675-0.765 and JOINT-only agreement falls to 0.538-0.691. These results show that evidence sensitivity occurs at meaningful rates in the hash-selected eligible-failure sample, is only partially predictable from the observed failure, and is conditional on the reader. The evidence supports a frame-scoped offline response audit, not an information-theoretic impossibility result, reader-independent taxonomy, or runtime repair policy.

Explore related subjects

cs.IRcs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Wenzhang Du. 2026-08-09. What Would Fix This RAG Failure? Auditing Counterfactual Response with Paired Evidence Interventions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.08944

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Offline A/B Testing of Slate Recommendation Systems with LLMs: Reducing the Dependency on Pre-Collected User Interaction Data

Slate recommender systems (RecSys) present users with ordered sets of interacting items (e.g., playlists). We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can articulate pairwise preferences between slates for synthetic A/B testing of slate RecSys. We introduce a validation protocol measuring the alignment of synthetic preferences with classical RecSys metrics and their compliance with preference axioms, and use it to characterise how LLM pre-training and configuration affect slate preference articulation. Combined with the generalized Rao-Kupper model, synthetic LLM-based A/B testing recovers rankings that remain stable across utility weightings, whereas off-policy estimators are reliable only when the target utility matches the logged behavior. We position it as a screening stage between off-policy evaluation and live experiments: not a replacement for A/B testing, but a way to reserve its cost for the most promising candidates.

cs.IR↗
arXiv2026

MM-BRIGHT: A Multi-Task Multimodal Benchmark for Reasoning-Intensive Retrieval

Existing retrieval benchmarks primarily consist of text-based queries where keyword or semantic matching is usually sufficient. Many real-world queries contain multimodal elements, particularly, images such as diagrams, charts, and screenshots that require intensive reasoning to identify relevant documents. To address this gap, we introduce MM-BRIGHT, the first multimodal benchmark for reasoning-intensive retrieval. Our dataset consists of 2,803 real-world queries spanning 29 diverse technical domains, with four tasks of increasing complexity: text-to-text, multimodal-to-text, multimodal-to-image, and multimodal-to-multimodal retrieval. Extensive evaluation reveals that state-of-the-art models struggle across all tasks: BM25 achieves only 8.5 nDCG@10 on text-only retrieval, while the best multimodal model Nomic-Vision reaches just 27.6 nDCG@10 on multimodal-to-text retrieval actually underperforming the best text-only model (DiVeR: 32.2). These results highlight substantial headroom and position MM-BRIGHT as a testbed for next-generation retrieval models that better integrate visual reasoning. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/mm-bright/MM-BRIGHT. See also our official website: https://mm-bright.github.io/.

cs.IR↗
arXiv2026

From Ranked Documents to Reliable Contexts: An Answer-Oriented Context Construct Framework for AI Search

Traditional Web search follows a human-facing paradigm in which users inspect ranked documents and synthesize information themselves. In AI Search, retrieved documents instead serve as inputs to a generation model, shifting the retrieval objective from ranking documents by Search Satisfaction to constructing reliable context for correct answer generation. We formulate this shift as answer-oriented context construction through a three-stage framework: (1) Answer Support identifies candidate documents that contribute information to answer generation; (2) Content Trustworthiness assesses whether this information provides a reliable basis for correct answers from source, temporal, and factual perspectives; and (3) Context Organization selects, consolidates, and structures retained information under a finite context budget for consistent and robust generation. We further develop an industrial workflow spanning prior and posterior optimization and establish a systematic evaluation protocol covering both retrieval-side context and final answers. Experiments show consistent improvements at both Retrieval and Answer levels, demonstrating the effectiveness of the framework and its industrial implementation.

cs.IR↗