跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2608.20627 · v2

When Failures Propagate: Causal Failure Attribution in Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation

首次提交 2026-08-21 07:56
版本更新 2026-11-11 07:49
雷达观测 2026-11-13 11:12
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Agentic retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) interleaves retrieval, reasoning, and answer generation across multiple hops. A retrieval error at hop 1 can surface only as a wrong answer at hop 3, while later retrieval can also repair the trajectory. This paper introduces AgenticRAG-FP, an interventional benchmark for causal failure attribution in agentic RAG. The benchmark injects a certified fault at a specified hop, re-executes the downstream trajectory, and evaluates diagnosers against the known intervention site. Its central question is whether a post-hoc trace still identifies the injected hop after the suffix changes. In the dense Claude Haiku 4.5 structural sweep on three-hop MuSiQue questions, coverage-based diagnosis is 0.91 at hop 1 and 0.00 at hops 2 and 3 (n=43,36,21 failed trajectories), but it predicts hop 1 in 96% of failures, an earliest-hop rule; at hops 2 and 3, an LLM judge and frozen-hop repair localize only 0.25 to 0.48 of failures. In larger content-corruption runs, depth-2 exact-hop accuracy is 0.00 for coverage, 0.49 for an LLM judge, 0.59 for frozen-hop repair, and 0.14 for suffix regeneration (n=51); the judge and frozen-hop repair do not significantly differ (exact McNemar p=0.33).

作者备注:12 pages. v2: updated author list and results to match the camera-ready version for the REALM Workshop at EMNLP 2026. Work done as part of the Anote AI Research Fellowship

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v2 · 2026-11-11 07:49 · 最新观测版本

When Failures Propagate: Causal Failure Attribution in Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Agentic retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) interleaves retrieval, reasoning, and answer generation across multiple hops. A retrieval error at hop 1 can surface only as a wrong answer at hop 3, while later retrieval can also repair the trajectory. This paper introduces AgenticRAG-FP, an interventional benchmark for causal failure attribution in agentic RAG. The benchmark injects a certified fault at a specified hop, re-executes the downstream trajectory, and evaluates diagnosers against the known intervention site. Its central question is whether a post-hoc trace still identifies the injected hop after the suffix changes. In the dense Claude Haiku 4.5 structural sweep on three-hop MuSiQue questions, coverage-based diagnosis is 0.91 at hop 1 and 0.00 at hops 2 and 3 (n=43,36,21 failed trajectories), but it predicts hop 1 in 96% of failures, an earliest-hop rule; at hops 2 and 3, an LLM judge and frozen-hop repair localize only 0.25 to 0.48 of failures. In larger content-corruption runs, depth-2 exact-hop accuracy is 0.00 for coverage, 0.49 for an LLM judge, 0.59 for frozen-hop repair, and 0.14 for suffix regeneration (n=51); the judge and frozen-hop repair do not significantly differ (exact McNemar p=0.33).

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗