Controllable Evidence Selection in Retrieval-Augmented Question Answering via Deterministic Utility Gating

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.18011v1
• Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2026 18:20:15 GMT
• Title: Controllable Evidence Selection in Retrieval-Augmented Question Answering via Deterministic Utility Gating
• Abstract summary: This paper presents a deterministic evidence selection framework for retrieval-augmented question answering.<n>The approach introduces Meaning-Utility Estimation (MUE) and Diversity-Utility Estimation (DUE)<n>In the prototype, a unit is accepted only if it explicitly states the fact, rule, or condition required by the task.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Many modern AI question-answering systems convert text into vectors and retrieve the closest matches to a user question. While effective for topical similarity, similarity scores alone do not explain why some retrieved text can serve as evidence while other equally similar text cannot. When many candidates receive similar scores, systems may select sentences that are redundant, incomplete, or address different conditions than the question requires. This paper presents a deterministic evidence selection framework for retrieval-augmented question answering. The approach introduces Meaning-Utility Estimation (MUE) and Diversity-Utility Estimation (DUE), fixed scoring and redundancy-control procedures that determine evidence admissibility prior to answer generation. Each sentence or record is evaluated independently using explicit signals for semantic relatedness, term coverage, conceptual distinctiveness, and redundancy. No training or fine-tuning is required. In the prototype, a unit is accepted only if it explicitly states the fact, rule, or condition required by the task. Units are not merged or expanded. If no unit independently satisfies the requirement, the system returns no answer. This deterministic gating produces compact, auditable evidence sets and establishes a clear boundary between relevant text and usable evidence.

Related papers

• Never the Number: Structural Abstention for AI Systems Whose Answers Are Consumed as Fact [0.0]
  Large language models have made natural language interfaces to databases newly credible, but calibrated text-to-aggregated systems fail in a way that matters for deployment.<n>We propose an architectural pattern for such systems, a trusted kernel with a generative shell, resting on one invariant.<n>A generative shell interprets under input and phrases replies; a deterministic kernel matches fully specified questions against a bounded set of answerable question shapes.<n>The two meet at a confirmation the user reads before any value is computed, and requests the kernel cannot express are declined rather than approximated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-14T03:53:21Z)
• When benchmark inferences do not compose: Projectibility in AI evaluation [0.0]
  An AI benchmark result rarely reaches a consequential claim in one step.<n>Evaluators generalize it to further cases, interpret it as evidence of capability, extrapolate it to new tasks, transport it to another system or site.<n>This paper identifies a further problem: warranted links don't automatically make a warranted chain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-28T18:07:04Z)
• From ambiguous utterances to governed reuse classes: canonicalization, quotient invariance, and conditional decidability [0.0]
  Reuse should operate on a mathematically characterized quotient of resolved conversational demands.<n> Reuse identity licenses the governed query key and its certified answer space.<n>The supporting layer is stated at exactly the strength proved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-11T01:49:04Z)
• Testing for LLM response differences: the case of a composite null consisting of semantically irrelevant query perturbations [10.216191904121178]
  Given two input queries, it is natural to ask if their response distributions are the same.<n>A traditional test of equality might indicate that two semantically equivalent queries induce statistically different response distributions.<n>In this paper, we address this misalignment by incorporating into the testing procedure consideration of a collection of semantically similar queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-13T19:44:42Z)
• Variability Need Not Imply Error: The Case of Adequate but Semantically Distinct Responses [7.581259361859477]
  Uncertainty quantification tools can be used to reject a response when the model is uncertain'<n>We estimate the Probability the model assigns to Adequate Responses (PROBAR)<n>We find PROBAR to outperform semantic entropy across prompts with varying degrees of ambiguity/open-endedness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T09:02:26Z)
• Evidence Contextualization and Counterfactual Attribution for Conversational QA over Heterogeneous Data with RAG Systems [4.143039012104666]
  Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) works as a backbone for interacting with an enterprise's own data via Conversational Question Answering (ConvQA)<n>In this work, we demonstrate RAGONITE, a RAG system that remedies the above concerns by: (i) contextualizing evidence with source metadata and surrounding text; and (ii) computing counterfactual attribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-13T21:28:17Z)
• QUDSELECT: Selective Decoding for Questions Under Discussion Parsing [90.92351108691014]
  Question Under Discussion (QUD) is a discourse framework that uses implicit questions to reveal discourse relationships between sentences. We introduce QUDSELECT, a joint-training framework that selectively decodes the QUD dependency structures considering the QUD criteria. Our method outperforms the state-of-the-art baseline models by 9% in human evaluation and 4% in automatic evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T06:46:08Z)
• Bisimulation Learning [55.859538562698496]
  We compute finite bisimulations of state transition systems with large, possibly infinite state space. Our technique yields faster verification results than alternative state-of-the-art tools in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T17:11:27Z)
• MQAG: Multiple-choice Question Answering and Generation for Assessing Information Consistency in Summarization [55.60306377044225]
  State-of-the-art summarization systems can generate highly fluent summaries. These summaries, however, may contain factual inconsistencies and/or information not present in the source. We introduce an alternative scheme based on standard information-theoretic measures in which the information present in the source and summary is directly compared.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-28T23:08:25Z)
• A Semantic-based Method for Unsupervised Commonsense Question Answering [40.18557352036813]
  Unsupervised commonsense question answering is appealing since it does not rely on any labeled task data. We present a novel SEmantic-based Question Answering method (SEQA) for unsupervised commonsense question answering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-31T08:21:52Z)
• Logically Consistent Loss for Visual Question Answering [66.83963844316561]
  The current advancement in neural-network based Visual Question Answering (VQA) cannot ensure such consistency due to identically distribution (i.i.d.) assumption. We propose a new model-agnostic logic constraint to tackle this issue by formulating a logically consistent loss in the multi-task learning framework. Experiments confirm that the proposed loss formulae and introduction of hybrid-batch leads to more consistency as well as better performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-19T20:31:05Z)
• A Wrong Answer or a Wrong Question? An Intricate Relationship between Question Reformulation and Answer Selection in Conversational Question Answering [15.355557454305776]
  We show that question rewriting (QR) of the conversational context allows to shed more light on this phenomenon. We present the results of this analysis on the TREC CAsT and QuAC (CANARD) datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-13T06:29:51Z)
• Evidence-Aware Inferential Text Generation with Vector Quantised Variational AutoEncoder [104.25716317141321]
  We propose an approach that automatically finds evidence for an event from a large text corpus, and leverages the evidence to guide the generation of inferential texts. Our approach provides state-of-the-art performance on both Event2Mind and ATOMIC datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-15T02:59:52Z)
• Robust Question Answering Through Sub-part Alignment [53.94003466761305]
  We model question answering as an alignment problem. We train our model on SQuAD v1.1 and test it on several adversarial and out-of-domain datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-30T09:10:57Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.