SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2601.08747

To Retrieve or To Think? Cross-Boundary Context Evolution for Multi-hop Complex Reasoning

Abstract

Current context augmentation methods, such as retrieval-augmented generation, play a crucial role in bridging a model's internal knowledge boundary and external evidence for multi-hop reasoning. However, they often follow a rigid policy and treat external retrieval as the default action at each step. Such brute-force context expansion incurs unnecessary computational cost and may degrade reasoning performance by saturating the context with redundant or weakly relevant evidence. In this paper, we propose cross-boundary Context Evolution (EvoCtx), a framework that models complex reasoning as an adaptive process of boundary-aware context evolution. EvoCtx dynamically decides whether the next reasoning transition should cross the current evidence boundary through retrieval or refine the reasoning state within the existing context. It estimates the semantic gap between the reasoning state and the accumulated evidence, and strategically alternates between boundary expansion and intra-boundary trajectory refinement. This eliminates redundant retrieval steps and preserves a compact, evidence-supported reasoning trajectory. Extensive experiments on challenging open-domain and multi-hop QA benchmarks demonstrate that EvoCtx significantly outperforms previous methods, offering an effective approach to complex reasoning tasks. The source code can be accessed at https://github.com/Anya-RB-Chen/EvoCtx.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Rubing Chen, Jian Wang, Wenjie Li, Xiao-Yong Wei, Qing Li. 2026-08-31. To Retrieve or To Think? Cross-Boundary Context Evolution for Multi-hop Complex Reasoning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.08747

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

When Robots Mishear Us: Mapping the Safety Risks of Voice-Controlled Embodied AI

We investigate whether automatic speech recognition (ASR) errors in user input can lead to unsafe outputs from Embodied AI (EAI) models. We find that ASR errors can lead to harmful instructions being accepted and executed by EAI models, thereby reducing safety. We simulate ASR errors and combine them with existing safety benchmarks (SafeAgentBench and POEX) to evaluate how different errors affect embodied AI safety. We find that some of them preserve semantic structure but increase harmful ambiguity, while others weaken the model refusal behaviour and allow unsafe plans to be generated and executed. We show that in some cases automatic correction of ASR errors can reduce the risk, but this is not always effective. Overall, we show that ASR errors lead to significant safety risks for embodied AI.

cs.AI

Sleight of Word Benchmark: Can Language Models Notice If Their Own Output Was Tampered With?

The output of a Language Model can be tampered with \emph{while} the model is writing it. A simple test can thus be constructed by evaluating the model's perception of this external perturbation. In this spirit, a simple benchmark is built in which a single word is consistently substituted with another in the generation process. We call this method \emph{Sleight of Word}. Two distinct axes are measured: metrics that relate to the model's surprise, as well as an evaluation of the textual reaction for 19 different open-weight language models.

cs.CL

TCS-BENCH: Benchmarking State-of-the-Art Generative AI Theoretical Computer Science Research Ability

We introduce TCS-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) on research-level Theoretical Computer Science (TCS) proof generation. TCS-Bench consists of theorem-proving tasks from papers published at top theoretical computer science venues (STOC, FOCS, and SODA). Each task provides the necessary context to derive a self-contained proof for a target result. We evaluate state-of-the-art models on this benchmark. We verify the correctness of generated proofs via a verification agent, and further benchmark the verifier against human-expert proof judgements on a set of target statements and generated proofs pairs. Our reference verifier achieves over 90% accuracy on the expert labeled set.

cs.CL