Qingying Niu | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

BOUND: Brief-Guided Corrective Preference Distillation at Search-Control Boundaries

Large language model (LLM)-based deep search agents solve tasks through iterative retrieval and reasoning, but locally relevant evidence can cause persistent wrong-anchor drift, constraint drift, or local-topic drift. Existing methods supervise trajectories, outcomes, or steps, but rarely distinguish task-aligned continuations from locally plausible ones that reinforce drift. We propose BOUND, a brief-guided corrective preference distillation framework for persistent search drift. For each student-induced decision-time state, BOUND constructs a teacher-side search-state brief that preserves the original search target and key constraints while summarizing confirmed evidence, missing information, and drift status. Guided by the brief, the teacher determines whether the student's continuation contains a correctable local search-control error likely to affect subsequent decisions. Together with the rollout outcome, this assessment determines whether to construct a corrective contrast between a student-specific correction and the original continuation, or a termination contrast between a supported answer and an unnecessary retrieval continuation. Each validated state-matched preference pair operationalizes a search-control boundary. Direct preference optimization (DPO) distills these preferences into the student, while the brief and teacher-side computation remain confined to training. We evaluate BOUND on four multi-hop QA benchmarks and three deep-search benchmarks. Across the six benchmarks for which we reran baselines, BOUND leads on five datasets and 12 of 14 metrics. Under the same search-control interface and matched settings, BOUND outperforms Trajectory SFT by 5.6 EM points on Bamboogle and 4.8 accuracy points on BrowseComp-Plus. Code is available at https://github.com/RUCAIBox/BOUND.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2026

ArbGraph: Conflict-Aware Evidence Arbitration for Reliable Long-Form Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) remains unreliable in long-form settings, where retrieved evidence is noisy or contradictory, making it difficult for RAG pipelines to maintain factual consistency. Existing approaches focus on retrieval expansion or verification during generation, leaving conflict resolution entangled with generation. To address this limitation, we propose ArbGraph, a framework for pre-generation evidence arbitration in long-form RAG that explicitly resolves factual conflicts. ArbGraph decomposes retrieved documents into atomic claims and organizes them into a conflict-aware evidence graph with explicit support and contradiction relations. On top of this graph, we introduce an intensity-driven iterative arbitration mechanism that propagates credibility signals through evidence interactions, enabling the system to suppress unreliable and inconsistent claims before final generation. In this way, ArbGraph separates evidence validation from text generation and provides a coherent evidence foundation for downstream long-form generation. We evaluate ArbGraph on two widely used long-form RAG benchmarks, LongFact and RAGChecker, using multiple large language model backbones. Experimental results show that ArbGraph consistently improves factual recall and information density while reducing hallucinations and sensitivity to retrieval noise. Additional analyses show that these gains are evident under conflicting or ambiguous evidence, highlighting the effectiveness of evidence-level conflict resolution for improving the reliability of long-form RAG. The implementation is publicly available at https://github.com/1212Judy/ArbGraph.

cs.CL↗