Uncertainty Quantification for Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning

October 13, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› arXiv.org

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Heydar Soudani, Hamed Zamani, Faegheh Hasibi arXiv ID 2510.11483 Category cs.IR: Information Retrieval Citations 3 Venue arXiv.org Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Retrieval-augmented reasoning (RAR) is a recent evolution of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) that employs multiple reasoning steps for retrieval and generation. While effective for some complex queries, RAR remains vulnerable to errors and misleading outputs. Uncertainty quantification (UQ) offers methods to estimate the confidence of systems' outputs. These methods, however, often handle simple queries with no retrieval or single-step retrieval, without properly handling RAR setup. Accurate estimation of UQ for RAR requires accounting for all sources of uncertainty, including those arising from retrieval and generation. In this paper, we account for all these sources and introduce Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning Consistency (R2C)--a novel UQ method for RAR. The core idea of R2C is to perturb the multi-step reasoning process by applying various actions to reasoning steps. These perturbations alter the retriever's input, which shifts its output and consequently modifies the generator's input at the next step. Through this iterative feedback loop, the retriever and generator continuously reshape one another's inputs, enabling us to capture uncertainty arising from both components. Experiments on five popular RAR systems across diverse QA datasets show that R2C improves AUROC by over 5% on average compared to the state-of-the-art UQ baselines. Extrinsic evaluations using R2C as an external signal further confirm its effectiveness for two downstream tasks: in Abstention, it achieves ~5% gains in both F1Abstain and AccAbstain; in Model Selection, it improves the exact match by ~7% over single models and ~3% over selection methods.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Information Retrieval

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted