qa system engineers

Abstract: Selection bias in large language models (LLMs) can persist despite instructions to ignore presentation order or prompts that elicit reasoning. Recent efforts to reproduce Jev-style System One behavior have produced a growing family of models that predict probabilities directly over supplied candidates. Yet systematic comparisons of selection bias across Jev versions, Jev reproductions, and generative LLMs remain limited in multi-option tasks. This leaves a central question: does Jev-style decision structure reduce selection bias? We address this question with a simple test that shuffles options while keeping question and candidate content fixed. Across two Jev versions, twelve Jev reproductions, and six generative LLMs, we trace individual answers through eight presentations and compare them with fixed-order repetition. On our primary collection of 1,700 questions from two benchmarks, Jev's accuracy varies by less than two percentage points, yet its cumulative failure set expands by 27--29\% relative to the original order, with first failures continuing into the final presentation. This loss of initial successes is substantially larger than under fixed-order repetition, even for highly repeatable Jev reproductions. Nor does Jev show a general advantage over the LLM baselines in preserving correct choices. Aggregation offers limited protection: voting yields modest gains for Jev, while even unanimous answers are frequently wrong. These results expose a gap between repeatable decisions and decisions that remain correct across equivalent presentations, showing why stable accuracy alone cannot establish resistance to selection bias.

Abstract: Large reasoning models (LRMs) have achieved substantial improvements in solving complex mathematical problems, but often produce lengthy, repetitive, or erroneous reasoning trajectories. In this work, we introduce a new interpretability framework, SLIDER, to evaluate the quality of the reasoning process. SLIDER leverages an emerging body of work from information theory called Partial Information Decomposition to disentangle the information about the final answer between two consecutive reasoning steps into non-negative components: unique information (in preceding steps or current step), redundant information, and synergistic information. Building on this decomposition, we propose the *Step-wise Repetitive Reasoning Index (Step-RRI)*, a theoretically grounded measure that assesses whether the answer-relevant information in the current step $S_i$ is predominantly redundant with the past steps $S_{<i}$, relative to its unique and synergistic contributions. To evaluate the effectiveness of Step-RRI in detecting repetitiveness, we apply SLIDER to the redundancy class of the PRMBench dataset where Step-RRI improves step-level redundancy identification accuracy by over $10$ points compared to embedding-similarity and information-gain baselines. Next, we define *Trajectory-RRI*, an aggregate measure of repetitiveness for an individual reasoning trajectory. To demonstrate its practical relevance, we show that average Trajectory-RRI strongly correlates with actual reasoning length across QwQ-32B, DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B, and GPT-4.1, motivating its use as a signal for improving reasoning efficiency. Finally, we introduce *Trajectory-RRI-guided data selection for fine-tuning*, demonstrating that selecting training data based on Trajectory-RRI can improve a fine-tuned model's reasoning efficiency while largely preserving its task performance.

Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems typically employ fixed retriever and generator configurations across queries, despite substantial differences in query complexity and information needs, leading to inefficient allocation of computational resources. While retrieval and generation adaptivity have been studied independently, their joint effect on end-to-end RAG performance remains underexplored. We systematically analyze how retriever and generator complexity interacts across factoid and multi-hop question answering (QA), including bridge and composition reasoning tasks. Our analysis shows that stronger retrieval generally yields larger gains than increased generation effort, but both exhibit diminishing and non-monotonic returns, indicating that higher-complexity configurations are not uniformly better across queries. Motivated by these findings, we introduce DRAG, a query-adaptive framework for selecting retriever-generator configurations. We first propose DRAG$_\text{QPP}$, a training-free routing approach that uses Query Performance Prediction (QPP) signals to guide retriever selection and perplexity-based measures over retrieved context to guide generator selection. We further introduce DRAG$_\text{SFT}$, a supervised routing approach that fine-tunes an LLM to jointly predict retriever-generator configurations. Across three LLM families and four QA benchmarks, \qpprag~achieves performance comparable to strong static RAG baselines while substantially reducing inference latency, whereas DRAG$_\text{SFT}$ consistently improves effectiveness over static and training-free adaptive baselines. Overall, DRAG demonstrates that jointly adapting retrieval and generation achieves a more favorable effectiveness-efficiency trade-off than static RAG pipelines.