Skip to content

Retrieving from Your Own Mistakes: On-Policy Training of Embedding Models for Multi-Hop Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Oct 2026 · 0 citations · 26 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

On-policy state training, which trains the encoder on the states it reaches itself, which retrieves complete evidence more often than teacher-forced training and the systems the authors compare, and it transfers without further training to harder long-chain variants of HotpotQA and 2WikiMultiHopQA that are constructed.

Abstract

Complex questions in retrieval-augmented generation require evidence spread over several documents, and an answer is reliable only when the retriever finds all of it. Chain embedding retrievers collect such evidence step by step, re-encoding the question together with the passages retrieved so far, and we find that they are already strong: trained only on gold histories, a small chain embedding retriever that calls no language model outperforms graph-based systems and is competitive with a search agent. This training, however, leaves a gap. At test time the retriever conditions on its own retrievals, which soon contain mistakes: by the third step, about half or more of the states it visits hold a wrong passage, and these passages lower its chance of retrieving a missing gold passage well beyond what the difficulty of the states explains. We propose on-policy state training, which trains the encoder on the states it reaches itself. At every epoch the current encoder retrieves chains for the training questions; each state it visits, including those built on its own mistakes, is labeled with the earliest gold passage still missing while the other missing gold passages are masked, so that no correct continuation is penalized; and the encoder is updated contrastively on these states mixed with teacher-forced ones, so that its training distribution follows it as it learns. The resulting retriever retrieves complete evidence more often than teacher-forced training and the systems we compare, and it transfers without further training to harder long-chain variants of HotpotQA and 2WikiMultiHopQA that we construct. On the same states, it recovers from its own mistakes far more often, and controlled comparisons attribute the gain to training on the states the encoder currently reaches.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Oct 2026

Retriever-Free Retrieval: Navigating Documents with Decision Models

While language models have become dramatically more capable, retrieval still largely relies on lexical matching or similarity in fixed embedding spaces. This creates a capability asymmetry: what the retriever fails to find, even the strongest generator cannot recover. We propose DecisionRAG, which brings the capabiliti...

Chao Wan, Paul J. Jünger, Bei-Xi Du et al. · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Oct 2026

TriageRAG: Failure-Aware Self-Training for Adapting Retrieval-Augmented Language Models to Specialized Domains

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) lets large language models (LLMs) answer knowledge-intensive questions from retrieved evidence, but adapting a general-purpose RAG system to a specialized domain such as medicine is difficult when only an unlabeled corpus is available. Self-training approaches such as SimRAG address...

Samarth Varshney, R. Yadav · 0 citations
#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

Intrinsic Sequence-Likelihood Confidence in Retrieval-Dominated Extractive QA: Two Pre-Specified Negatives, and What They Do and Do Not Attribute

In extractive document question answering whose questions were generated from the passages that contain their answers -- so that retrieval recovers 92-99.8% of what any mode combination could reach, whatever its absolute accuracy -- confidence-driven mechanisms have little to gain. Fine-tuning an open language model on...

Gun-Woo Lee, Chang-Min Sung, Sang-Hwan Gwak et al. · 0 citations
Review Oct 2026

Nothing Left Behind: Embedding Retrieval and Language Model Screening for High Recall Evidence Search

AI systems that ground their answers from retrieved documents usually need only a few relevant passages, but applications such as systematic reviews and legal discovery need nearly all of them, because their conclusions rest on the full body of evidence. These applications have traditionally searched with curated taxon...

Giuliano Martinelli, Abelardo Carlos Martinez Lorenzo, Satvik Garg et al. · 0 citations
#natural language process... Preprint Oct 2026

Beyond Retrieval Failure: Understanding Why LLMs Miss Evidence in Multi-Hop RAG

Multi-hop retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) requires an agent to retrieve evidence for a sequence of dependent sub-questions. When a wrong answer lacks a required passage, the passage may be inaccessible to the retriever, or the agent may have failed to issue a query that would retrieve it. Standard retrieval evalua...

Jia-Qi Wei, Wen-Xuan Huang, Cheng-Dong Xu et al. · 0 citations
2026

LPDG-RAG: Leveraging Probabilistic Rewards and Dynamic Granularity for Retrieval- Augmented Generation

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) improves Large Language Models (LLMs) by incorporating external documents, but its effectiveness degrades when retrieved passages are irrelevant, incomplete, or inconsistent with parametric knowledge. We present LPDG-RAG, a post-training framework that extends reasoning-based knowle...

Hai-Feng Liu, Rui-Qi Zhao, Nan Zhao et al. · 0 citations

Related blog posts

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.