End to end across three datasets, three generator sizes and two prompts, per-chunk gating is significantly worse than not filtering at all in every cell, and its penalty grows with generator capability.
Abstract
Verification for retrieval-augmented generation usually scores each retrieved chunk and drops the ones that fail. We show this cannot work for multi-hop questions, and show what does. Per-chunk scoring assumes one chunk is a sufficient premise for the answer. Multi-hop questions are built so that none is, and the paragraph carrying the answer is the one the question does not name. Entailment scoring reaches 0.643, 0.523 and 0.560 AUC on HotpotQA, 2WikiMultihopQA and MuSiQue, against 0.951 on single-hop SQuAD. Seven controls rule out model capacity, premise length, hypothesis template, decision threshold, retriever, answer-matching criterion and prompt. End to end across three datasets, three generator sizes and two prompts, per-chunk gating is significantly worse than not filtering at all in every cell, and its penalty grows with generator capability. The repair is to condition verification on the decomposed sub-question rather than the original query. Using MuSiQue's gold decomposition, entailment on a later hop rises from 0.546, which is chance, to 0.840, a paired lift of +0.355 with a bootstrap interval of [0.331, 0.382]. An off-the-shelf Qwen2.5-7B decomposer, given the question and the top retrieved paragraph, reaches 0.637 and captures 31% of that ceiling; decomposing without retrieval reaches 0.533, below the original question. Iterative retrieval systems already produce such decompositions and discard them before verifying.
We present ChunkRank, an open-source Python library that derives chunk boundaries from a target model's tokenizer and context window, and selects an answer among candidates produced independently per chunk. It ships a validated registry of 90 models across 15 providers and six answer-selection methods, and needs only t...
Amit Nautiyal, Ayush Bhatt, Gaurav Nautiyal· 0 citations
Retrieval-augmented multi-hop question answering (QA) decomposes a query into sub-questions and decomposes the corpus into smaller retrieval units such as sentences. Both forms of decomposition improve the pipeline, but we show that both share the same vulnerability, the loss of entity information, and that this loss b...
This work compares Turkish document question answering across three chunking strategies, five embedding models, and two LLMs, over three documents with contrasting layouts, finding the faster LLM is not the more accurate one.
Mustafa Sertac Turkel, Fatma Nur Korkmaz, Ahmet Tugrul Bayrak· 1 citation
Retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG) links a large language model to a set of texts. But RAG works well only when two settings are right: how big each piece of text (a "chunk") is, and how many pieces the model reads. People often choose these by habit, not by data. In this study we tested how both settings change the...
Sajjad Ahmad, Jasim Hussain, Hamza Najeeb et al.· International Journal of Inn...· 0 citations
This work evaluates eight representative chunking strategies across two scalable corpora, three embedding models, and multiple corpus sizes, measuring both retrieval effectiveness and system-level costs and shows that computationally expensive methods rarely provide consistent gains over simpler chunking.
Laura Caspari, K. G. Dastidar, M. Dinzinger et al.· 0 citations
This work introduces CacheRepair, a lightweight network that learns the difference between independently computed KV caches and those produced by processing the chunks together, and shows that repair reduces KV errors both near chunk boundaries and throughout chunk interiors.
Gen Wang, Wang-Song Yin, Yeerzhati Abudunuer et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.