arXiv subjects

Juan Pablo De la Cruz Weinstein

Publications and source records attributed to Juan Pablo De la Cruz Weinstein.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Do LLM Attribution Metrics Transfer? Auditing Retrieval-Augmented Generation Evaluation Across Datasets and Constructs

Practice often treats automatic metrics for attribution in LLM retrieval-augmented generation as interchangeable. We audit eight automatic scorers -- lexical, embedding, and BERTScore baselines alongside entailment/grounding-trained models (clean and FEVER NLI, the checker MiniCheck) -- across three evaluation constructs (provenance/topicality, generated-answer attribution, and fact-check entailment), asking whether any scorer transfers: stays within the 95% confidence interval of the best audited scorer on every dataset of a multi-dataset construct. In the construct with the most multi-dataset human-labeled coverage -- generated-answer attribution (AttributionBench's four source datasets, n = 1,610, with independent HAGRID, n = 2,150) -- none of the audited automatic scorers does: the per-dataset metric rankings invert (Kendall tau = -0.64, p = 0.031 on AttributedQA vs. LFQA), and an off-the-shelf NLI scorer that is best on short-claim AttributedQA (AUROC 0.90) collapses to AUROC 0.53 (chance) on long-form LFQA, where BERTScore wins (0.91); the reversal persists under the tested truncation settings. This instability has a concrete decision cost: a naive "best-on-average" rule for choosing an evaluator fails leave-one-dataset-out (mean held-out regret 0.172 AUROC, worse than fixing one scorer), so metric choice should be validated on the target dataset rather than assumed from performance elsewhere. A prompt-based LLM judge avoids the chance-level collapses the automatic scorers suffer (no LFQA collapse) but is not uniformly best, ~100x costlier, and non-deterministic -- relocating, not removing, the validation burden.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

When Retrieval Metrics Mislead: Measuring Policy Signal in Long-Horizon Tool-Use Agents

Exact-match retrieval recall is often used as a proxy for whether a retriever supplies useful policy context to a downstream decision model. We test this proxy for pre-action policy classification in $τ$-bench using Qwen2.5-3B/7B classifiers. Under gold-policy conditioning, a compact structured state improves macro-F1 over raw trajectories by $0.20$ after tuning at 3B, with the same ordering at 7B under shared hyperparameters. We then replace the benchmark-designated governing rule with the top-ranked benchmark assertion retrieved from decision-time context. Although the exact governing rule is retrieved at rank 1 for only $7\%$ of airline states, the primary 3B classifier obtains macro-F1 $0.58$ with retrieved assertions versus $0.60$ with the gold rule ($Δ=-0.02$, task-cluster 95\% CI $[-0.23,+0.21]$); random non-gold and no-assertion controls score $0.32$ and $0.21$. We do not detect a macro-F1 difference between retrieved assertions and the gold rule in this configuration, although the interval remains too wide to establish non-inferiority. The same qualitative pattern appears with a second retriever and at 7B, while varying across fine-tuning configurations. These results show that exact-match recovery of the benchmark-designated rule can underestimate the downstream utility of retrieved benchmark assertions in this setting. Retrieval should therefore be evaluated inside the classification loop rather than by exact-match recall alone.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Keep Policy Gradient in Charge: Sibling-Guided Credit Distillation for Long-Horizon Tool-Use Agents

Long-horizon tool-use reinforcement learning learns from outcome verification, but trajectory-level advantages are broadcast over reasoning, API, and answer tokens. Direct self-distillation can supply a denser signal, but in our experiments it can also destroy tool use by rehearsing teacher behavior without identifying which actions the verifier rewards. We introduce Sibling-Guided Credit Distillation (SGCD), which uses distillation for bounded credit weighting rather than as a competing actor loss. Dynamic sampling produces mixed successful and failed sibling rollouts; an external LLM summarizes their contrast into a training-only credit reference; and detached teacher/student divergence reshapes GRPO token advantages. The deployed student receives only the clean task prompt. Across AppWorld and tau^3-airline, SGCD reports higher held-out point estimates than GRPO-family comparators: AppWorld TGC improves from 42.9 to 45.6 on test_normal and from 24.7 to 27.0 on test_challenge, and tau^3-airline held-out evaluator score improves from 0.583 to 0.602. These results support a narrow design rule for long-horizon tool-use agents: use distillation to guide credit assignment while keeping policy gradient in charge of the actor update.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

VERA: Validation and Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Systems

The increasing use of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems in various applications necessitates stringent protocols to ensure RAG systems accuracy, safety, and alignment with user intentions. In this paper, we introduce VERA (Validation and Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Systems), a framework designed to enhance the transparency and reliability of outputs from large language models (LLMs) that utilize retrieved information. VERA improves the way we evaluate RAG systems in two important ways: (1) it introduces a cross-encoder based mechanism that encompasses a set of multidimensional metrics into a single comprehensive ranking score, addressing the challenge of prioritizing individual metrics, and (2) it employs Bootstrap statistics on LLM-based metrics across the document repository to establish confidence bounds, ensuring the repositorys topical coverage and improving the overall reliability of retrieval systems. Through several use cases, we demonstrate how VERA can strengthen decision-making processes and trust in AI applications. Our findings not only contribute to the theoretical understanding of LLM-based RAG evaluation metric but also promote the practical implementation of responsible AI systems, marking a significant advancement in the development of reliable and transparent generative AI technologies.

cs.IR↗