AI & ML
When Connectivity Misleads: Guiding Agentic Search with Contrastive Evidence Paths
arXiv cs.IR0 views
arXiv:2610.36134v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Search agents can use cross-document graphs to discover sources through multi-hop connections and choose subsequent actions based on candidate rankings and relationships within a limited observation window. However, documents may rank highly because their numerous connections make them easier to reach, without necessarily providing more valuable evidence. Graph diffusion methods such as Personalized PageRank (PPR) aggregate propagation contributions from multiple sources, allowing highly connected distractor nodes to crowd the observation window. Flat node scores also obscure cross-document evidence trails, limiting continued exploration. We propose Contrastive Evidence Paths (CEP), which scores candidates by their strongest individual paths on a query-conditioned document graph and calibrates these scores against the same graph's background visitation distribution to mitigate structural bias. CEP ranks candidates by the calibrated scores and retains the corresponding source paths. Building on CEP, we develop Structured Corpus Interaction (SCI), which organizes candidates and their connecting paths into a structured Map, enabling agents to verify source documents and pursue missing information through expansion from anchor documents. Experiments on BrowseComp-Plus and TREC-COVID show that SCI achieves state-of-the-art answer accuracy and nDCG@10 with the lowest generation cost. Compared with the strongest baselines by task performance, maximum reductions in tool calls and total generation costs exceed 50% and 40%, respectively. Further analysis confirms that SCI with CEP suppresses ranking inflation induced by structural connections and improves gold recall and exploration efficiency.
Source:https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36134PreviousRELAY: One Query, Two Roles for Sequential RecommendationNextIs the education gap in generative AI use smaller than the internet's was at a similar level of use? Evidence from 16 European countries
Related posts
Lavoro su piattaforma e algoritmi: cosa cambia con la direttiva europea per chi progetta il software
0dev.to
LifeVal Benchmark Targets Everyday Personal Assistant Tasks Shaped by ChatGPT User Feedback
0dev.to
Oracle files to sell $20B in new stock, bonds to finance AI buildout
0Hacker News
7.9% to 48.1%: LLM rewrote Qwen weights, no training
0dev.to
Spousal Open Work Permits in Canada: Who Qualifies in 2026 and What to Prepare
0dev.to
Reading ingredient lists from phone photos: a crop bug, a model bench, and why the AI never gives the verdict
0dev.to