paper-with-me

홈 › Papers

Bridge Evidence: Static Retrieval Utility Does Not Predict Causal Utility in Multi-Step Agentic Search

2026-07-16 · Debayan Mukhopadhyay, Utshab Kumar Ghosh, Shubham Chatterjee arxiv

Retrieval systems are trained and evaluated on a static idea of usefulness: hand a document and a question to a reader model, see whether the answer improves, and score the document accordingly. The idea holds up when a document is read on its own. It breaks when a language model works as a search agent, issuing several queries and reasoning across turns, because a document can matter for what it lets the agent do next rather than for what it says about the current question. We measure that gap rather than argue it. Using a ReAct style agent over HotpotQA, we replay 1000 development questions and, for every document the agent read, delete it and re-run the rest of the trajectory from that point. Comparing the original run against its counterfactual gives a Counterfactual Trajectory Utility (CTU) score from three deltas: final answer quality, next query retrieval quality, and turn count. Crossing CTU against Static RAG Utility (SRU) over 23,322 document observations, the two are close to statistically independent (Spearman rho = -0.026). Roughly a third of the documents the agent reads are causally load bearing while looking useless to a static reader; we call these bridge documents. The pattern survives when the reader based axis is swapped for a BM25 and cross encoder proxy, giving a bridge cell of 27.2% on an evenly spread axis. A second experiment pins down the mechanism. Using the Observable Entity Relevance (OER) measure from prior work, entities that discriminate relevant from non-relevant candidates appear in the agent's next query 4.02 times more often than entities found only in non-relevant documents (6.1% vs 1.5%, n = 227,139). A bridge document earns its keep by handing the agent a discriminative entity that redirects the search. Static relevance and causal usefulness are different quantities in agentic retrieval, and optimizing the first does not deliver the second.

📄 PDF Abstract BibTeX arXiv:2607.15253

Code (1)

Aaron617/agent-arXiv-daily ★ 10

Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반

Beyond Static Retrieval: Opportunities and Pitfalls of Iterative Retrieval in GraphRAG

2025-09-29 · Kai Guo, Xinnan Dai, Shenglai Zeng, Harry Shomer 외 arxiv

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is a powerful paradigm for improving large language models (LLMs) on knowledge-intensive question answering. Graph-based RAG (GraphRAG) leverages entity-relation graphs to support mul…

Question Answering

LLM-Specific Utility for Retrieval-Augmented Generation

2025-10-13 · Hengran Zhang, Keping Bi, Jiafeng Guo, Jiaming Zhang 외 arxiv

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is typically optimized for topical relevance, yet its success ultimately depends on whether retrieved passages are useful for a large language model (LLM) to generate correct and comp…

Natural Questions

Point-in-Time Financial RAG with Frozen LLMs and Market-Feedback Adaptive Retrieval

2026-05-29 · Zijie Zhao, Roy E. Welsch arxiv

Financial retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems typically rank evidence by textual relevance, but in financial markets evidence utility depends on event type, forecast horizon, and market context. We study news-tr…

FitText: Evolving Agent Tool Ecologies via Memetic Retrieval

2026-05-04 · Kyle Zheng, Han Zhang, Renliang Sun, Chenchen Ye 외 arxiv

A semantic gap separates how users describe tasks from how tools are documented. As API ecosystems scale to tens of thousands of endpoints, static retrieval from the initial query alone cannot bridge this gap: the agent'…

From Relevance to Utility: Evidence Retrieval with Feedback for Fact Verification

2023-10-18 · Hengran Zhang, Ruqing Zhang, Jiafeng Guo, Maarten de Rijke 외

Retrieval-enhanced methods have become a primary approach in fact verification (FV); it requires reasoning over multiple retrieved pieces of evidence to verify the integrity of a claim. To retrieve evidence, existing wor…

Fact VerificationRetrieval