arXiv:2607.10795cs.AIcs.CL2026-07

提出证据压缩框架,提升多跳问答最终答案选择准确性

STEC: Evidence Compression for Deep Search in Open-domain Multi-Hop QA

论文配图:STEC: Evidence Compression for Deep Search in Open-domain Multi-Hop QA
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 按答案归类轨迹,生成候选专属证据表示
  • 在四个基准上优于现有方法,准确率显著提升
  • 适合需要高精度多跳推理的问答系统开发者

在开放域多跳问答中,基于大模型的搜索代理通过结合检索与推理,为知识密集型问答提供了有效方案。现有方法主要从推理范式、检索交互和搜索策略优化入手,但多条搜索路径带来的最终答案选择难题仍难解决:不同路径支持不同候选答案,且检索信息存在异质性、冗余、不完整或冲突。直接比较原始轨迹会暴露验证器于噪声内容,而仅比较答案字符串则忽略支撑证据,导致可靠选择困难。为此,我们提出STEC,一种用于多跳问答最终答案选择的证据压缩框架。STEC通过两个机制实现:(1) 答案级证据压缩,将轨迹按归一化答案身份分组,并转化为候选专属证据表示;(2) 证据引导的答案验证,比较这些表示并从候选集中选出最终答案。该设计将最终选择从原始轨迹比较转向候选级证据比较。我们在四个开放域多跳问答基准上评估STEC,对比代表性基线。实验结果表明,STEC整体表现最佳,消融实验进一步证实答案级证据压缩对最终选择有贡献。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

In open-domain multi-hop question answering (QA), LLM-based search agents offer a promising approach to knowledge-intensive QA by combining retrieval with reasoning. Existing methods mainly improve open-domain multi-hop QA through reasoning paradigms, retrieval interaction, and search strategy optimization. However, using multiple search trajectories introduces a challenging final answer selection problem. Different trajectories may support different candidates, and the retrieved information can be heterogeneous, redundant, incomplete, or conflicting. Directly comparing raw trajectories exposes the verifier to noisy and unaligned content, while comparing answer strings ignores the evidence supporting each candidate, making reliable final selection difficult. To address this challenge, we propose STEC, an evidence compression framework for final answer selection in multi-hop QA. STEC selects the final answer from the existing candidate set through two mechanisms: (1) Answer-Level Evidence Compression, which groups trajectories by normalized answer identity and converts each answer group into a candidate-specific evidence representation; and (2) Evidence-Guided Answer Verification, which compares these representations and selects the final answer from the candidate set. The design shifts final selection from raw trajectory comparison to candidate-level evidence comparison. We evaluate STEC on four open-domain multi-hop QA benchmarks against representative baselines. Experimental results show that STEC performs best overall among the compared methods, and ablation results provide evidence that answer-level evidence compression contributes to final answer selection.

多跳问答证据压缩大模型

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。