Experiments across multiple long-context narrative question answering and claim verification settings show that ClueWeaver substantially improves local end-to-end language models while providing evidence coverage and paragraph-referenced reasoning traces.
Abstract
Humanities and social science research requires close reading of long narrative materials such as novels, scripts, archives, and case reports, yet many users have limited access to costly proprietary long-context models. Compact, locally deployable language models are a practical alternative, but directly feeding them an entire long context remains costly, hard to inspect, and prone to missing sparse evidence. We present ClueWeaver, an evidence-aware dual-agent framework for long-narrative question answering with compact local models. A Finder identifies passages containing answer-critical clues through retrieval-guided segmentation, while an Interpreter derives the answer from the selected evidence, produces rationales with paragraph-ID citations, and applies an internal self-calibration pass for high-risk questions. Both agents are optimized with reward-guided reinforcement learning: Finder rewards emphasize evidence retention and faithful paragraph-ID references, and Interpreter rewards emphasize correctness, grounding, and concise explanations. This decomposition makes evidence selection and reasoning more inspectable than end-to-end prompting. Experiments across multiple long-context narrative question answering and claim verification settings show that ClueWeaver substantially improves local end-to-end language models while providing evidence coverage and paragraph-referenced reasoning traces. Code is available at https://github.com/Ameame1/ClueWeaver.
These findings suggest that, even as long-context evaluation shifts from simple retrieval toward complex reasoning, accurate grounding in relevant evidence remains an indispensable capability with substantial room for improvement.
SAGE is an evidence-grounded multi-agent framework that reformulates Chinese ancient document understanding as evidence-grounded inference rather than direct answer generation, highlighting the importance of structured, evidence-grounded inference beyond model scaling.
Yu-Chuan Wu, Xuan Luo, Yinglian Zhu et al.· 0 citations
This work introduces XstrAI, an audience-aware multi-agent framework that treats local explanations as fixed evidence and structures how it is communicated to each target reader, and evaluates XstrAI on diabetes and stroke risk prediction against 11 baselines.
F. Musicco, Danilo Danese, Giuseppe Fasano et al.· 0 citations
The results show that indirect, natural-looking text can systematically steer model predictions while remaining substantially less inferable than direct paraphrases, which shows that reasoning brittleness is not merely an evaluation artifact: it creates a practical channel through which latent biases can be amplified b...
Xiao Ye, Sanika Chavan, Yuxi Huang et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
REFACT is an adaptive fact-restatement citation framework that enables LLMs to determine when contextual grounding is needed and selectively restate source facts at appropriate levels of detail for reliable reasoning.
Zhensheng Jin, Xin Dai, Zhenghao Liu et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
Across multi-step visual tool-use benchmarks, SPARE achieves the highest average accuracy among pruning methods while removing 37.89-64.58\% of reasoning tokens, showing that reducing textual dominance restores reliance on visual evidence and mitigates over-conditioning on self-generated language.
Yuchen Huang, Sijia Li, Jun Zhang et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.