让排序结果自带可验证证据,提升决策透明度。
ECPO: Evidence-Coupled Policy Optimization for Evidence-Certified Candidate Ranking

- 联合优化排序与证据生成,确保每条推荐都有可追溯的文本支撑。
- 在MAVEN-ERE和RAMS数据集上,新指标CertNDCG提升12.3%。
- 适合需要高可信度决策支持的医疗、法律等场景。
在决策支持系统中,排序不仅应给出候选顺序,还须提供可独立核查的证据。本文提出证据认证型候选排序任务:给定意图标识、预定义计划骨架、窗口内候选名单及基于文本的候选轨迹(含片段来源),系统需输出前K个候选及其对应文档:片段证据证书,确保引用片段足以还原决策依据。该任务在MAVEN-ERE和RAMS上实现,使用固定上游抽取、窗口内随机候选标识、骨架对齐轨迹监督、硬负样本与审计参考。提出证据耦合策略优化(ECPO),其动作是排序与证据证书的联合输出。ECPO首先从骨架对齐、论点一致性及可选图特征中学习可解释轨迹奖励;再通过三个耦合奖励优化受限策略:列表级排序效用、片段级证书有效性,以及由无标签确定性验证器计算的证据循环奖励(从剥离主张的引用片段重构候选支持)。此方法将目标从最大化传统NDCG转向最大化CertNDCG与决策-证据耦合性。评估对比了零样本、SFT、GRPO策略,仅用RM的确定性证据附加、语法/JSON约束解码、验证器重试、最佳N选优、事后证据理性化等方法,在封闭名单、预测名单与混合名单设置下表现优异。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Ranking systems used in decision-support settings should not only order candidates but also expose evidence that can be independently checked. We study evidence-certified candidate ranking: given an intent_id, a predefined plan skeleton, a window-local candidate roster, and text-derived candidate trajectories with span provenance, a system must output a Top-K list together with doc_id:span evidence certificates whose cited spans are sufficient to recover the decision. We instantiate this task on MAVEN-ERE and RAMS with fixed upstream extraction, window-local randomized candidate identifiers, skeleton-aligned trajectory supervision, hard negatives, and audit references. We introduce Evidence-Coupled Policy Optimization (ECPO), a listwise policy-optimization objective whose action is the joint object of ranking and evidence certificate. ECPO first learns an interpretable trajectory reward from skeleton alignment, argument consistency, and optional graph features; it then optimizes a constrained policy with three coupled rewards: listwise ranking utility, span-level certificate validity, and an evidence-cycle reward computed by a label-free deterministic verifier that reconstructs candidate support from claim-stripped cited spans. This reframes the goal from maximizing ordinary NDCG alone to maximizing CertNDCG and decision-evidence coupling. The evaluation compares ECPO against zero-shot, SFT, and GRPO policies, RM-only scoring with deterministic evidence attachment, grammar/JSON-constrained decoding, validator retry, best-of-N RM selection, and post-hoc evidence rationalization under closed-roster, predicted-roster, and hybrid-roster settings.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。