Uncertainty Quantification for Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.11483
• Title: Uncertainty Quantification for Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning
• Authors: Heydar Soudani (Radboud University), Hamed Zamani (University of Massachusetts Amherst), Faegheh Hasibi (Radboud University)
• Classification: cs.IR
• Submission Date/Venue: Submitted to arXiv on October 13, 2024
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.11483

Abstract

Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning (RAR) represents the latest development of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), employing multi-step reasoning for both retrieval and generation. While effective for certain complex queries, RAR remains prone to generating erroneous and misleading outputs. Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) provides a methodology for assessing the confidence of system outputs. However, these methods typically address simple queries with no retrieval or single-step retrieval, and cannot properly handle RAR settings. Accurate UQ estimation for RAR requires considering all sources of uncertainty, including those arising from both retrieval and generation. This paper addresses all these sources and introduces Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning Consistency (R2C)—a novel uncertainty quantification method for RAR. The core idea of R2C is to perturb the multi-step reasoning process by applying various actions to reasoning steps. These perturbations modify the retriever's input, thereby altering its output, and subsequently modify the generator's input in the next step. Through this iterative feedback loop, the retriever and generator continuously reshape each other's inputs, enabling us to capture uncertainty from both components.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

The core problem addressed in this research is how to accurately quantify the uncertainty of Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning (RAR) systems. RAR systems combine retrieval and generation through multi-step reasoning processes. While demonstrating superior performance in handling complex queries, they remain susceptible to generating erroneous and misleading outputs.

Problem Significance

1. Trustworthiness Assurance: In knowledge-intensive tasks, system trustworthiness is paramount, and users need to know when they can rely on system outputs
2. Error Detection: RAR systems may retrieve irrelevant documents in early steps, misinterpret retrieved content, or misuse internal knowledge
3. Practical Application Requirements: In high-risk domains such as healthcare and law, uncertainty quantification is critical for decision support systems

Limitations of Existing Methods

1. Single Uncertainty Source: Existing UQ methods primarily focus on the generation process of LLMs, neglecting the uncertainty of retrievers
2. Simple Scenario Assumptions: Most methods assume inputs contain only queries and cannot handle complex multi-step retrieval scenarios
3. RAG Limitations: Limited work on RAG uncertainty quantification applies only to simple one-shot retrieval scenarios

Research Motivation

The authors argue that effective UQ methods should consider multiple sources of uncertainty in RAR systems: the retriever (which may provide irrelevant or partially relevant documents) and the generator (whose reasoning may deviate from user query intent). Consequently, they propose a comprehensive uncertainty quantification framework.

Core Contributions

1. Proposes R2C Method: The first theoretically grounded UQ method based on Markov Decision Processes (MDP) that captures different sources of uncertainty in RAR
2. Comprehensive Experimental Validation: Extensive experiments on three datasets and five RAR methods, with average AUROC improvement exceeding 5%
3. Downstream Task Validation: Demonstrates method effectiveness on abstention and model selection tasks
4. Efficiency Improvement: Achieves approximately 2.5× improvement in token efficiency compared to baseline methods
5. Diversity Analysis: Demonstrates that diversified query and document generation enhances UQ by capturing multiple uncertainty sources

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Given a user query x, the RAR system generates a response r through a multi-step reasoning process. The goal of uncertainty quantification is to estimate the system's confidence in its output, represented by an uncertainty score U(x,r).

Model Architecture

MDP Formulation

R2C models RAR as a Markov Decision Process (S,A,P,R):

• States S: Each intermediate state st = ⟨τt, qt⟩ contains thought τt and search query qt
• Actions A: Primary action set A = {aret, aans}, where aret represents retrieval action and aans represents stopping action
• Perturbation Actions A*: A* = {aqp, acr, aav}, including query paraphrasing, critical rethinking, and answer validation

Core Algorithm Flow

1. Most Likely Generation: First generates the most probable reasoning path and response
2. Diversified Generation: Generates B different responses through perturbation actions
3. Consistency Scoring: Computes uncertainty score using majority voting

Perturbation Action Design

A1: Query Paraphrasing (QP)

• Purpose: Explores different semantic formulations of the original query
• Implementation: Maintains thought τt unchanged while modifying query qt
• Rationale: Tests whether the reasoning path is sensitive to query paraphrasing

A2: Critical Rethinking (CR)

• Purpose: Addresses the lack of self-criticism in RAR models
• Implementation: Generates new states that explicitly reject previously retrieved information
• Rationale: If the reasoning path is erroneous, this action can adjust to more reliable trajectories

A3: Answer Validation (AV)

• Purpose: Verifies the correctness of final responses
• Implementation: Evaluates responses based on two criteria: (1) groundedness—whether the response is supported by retrieved documents; (2) correctness—whether the response adequately answers the query
• Rationale: Improves response quality through posterior validation

Technical Innovations

1. Multi-source Uncertainty Capture: First to simultaneously consider uncertainty from both retrievers and generators
2. MDP Theoretical Framework: Formalizes RAR as an MDP, providing theoretical foundation for uncertainty quantification
3. Controlled Perturbations: Explores diversified reasoning paths through carefully designed perturbation actions
4. Iterative Feedback Mechanism: Retrievers and generators continuously reshape each other's inputs through perturbations

Experimental Setup

Datasets

• PopQA: Single-hop question answering task, 500 queries randomly sampled
• HotpotQA: Multi-hop question answering task, 500 queries randomly sampled
• Musique: Multi-hop question answering task, 500 queries randomly sampled
• Retrieval Corpus: 2018 Wikipedia dump

Evaluation Metrics

• Direct Evaluation: AUROC (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve)
• Abstention Task: AbstainAccuracy and AbstainF1
• Model Selection Task: Exact Match (EM)

Baseline Methods

1. Path-based Methods: SelfC, ReaC, RrrC
2. Estimation-based Methods:
   • White-box methods: PE, SE, MARS, SAR, LARS
   • Black-box methods: NumSS, EigV, ECC, Deg, P(true)

Implementation Details

• Generation Model: Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct
• Retrieval Method: BM25 initial retrieval + ms-marco-MiniLM-L-6-v2 reranking
• Sampling Settings: Temperature T=1.0 for UQ tasks, T=0.7 for correctness evaluation
• Generation Quantity: 10 responses sampled per query

Experimental Results

Main Results

Uncertainty Quantification Performance

R2C achieves the best performance across all tested RAR systems:

• Average AUROC: 81.99%, improvement exceeding 5% over the best baseline method
• Statistical Significance: Verified through DeLong test, showing statistical significance in most settings
• Consistent Advantage: Consistent performance across different datasets and models

Downstream Task Performance

Abstention Task:

• AbstainAccuracy: Average improvement of ~5% (80.25% vs 75.44%)
• AbstainF1: Average improvement of ~5% (85.82% vs 80.79%)
• AUARC Metric: 47.15% vs 43.83%, demonstrating reasonable threshold selection

Model Selection Task:

• Compared to Single Models: Average improvement of ~7% (39.9% vs 33.0%)
• Compared to Selection Methods: Average improvement of ~3% (39.9% vs 37.0%)
• Near Ideal Performance: Achieves 84.2% of ideal model selection performance

Ablation Studies

Action Selection Analysis

• Single Actions: Different actions show varying performance across different systems
• Combination Effects: Complete action sets typically outperform single actions
• System Specificity: Certain action configurations may be more suitable for specific RAR systems

Generation Quantity Impact

• Efficiency Advantage: R2C achieves baseline performance with 10 generations using only 3 generations
• Performance Stability: Performance improvements stabilize as generation quantity increases

Diversity Analysis

Document Diversity

• R2C: Average of 24.71 unique documents retrieved
• Baseline Methods: RrrC (5.81), SelfC (15.35), ReaC (16.4)

Query Diversity

• R2C: Query diversity score of 0.35
• Baseline Methods: RrrC (0.20), SelfC (0.28), ReaC (0.30)

Efficiency Analysis

• Token Efficiency: R2C achieves baseline performance at ~700 tokens compared to baseline's 1700 tokens
• Efficiency Improvement: Approximately 2.5× improvement in token generation efficiency
• Computational Resources: Total of approximately 1500 GPU hours (4×Nvidia A100 40GB)

Related Work

Retrieval-Augmented Models

1. RAG Framework: Combines advantages of retrieval and generation models
2. Implementation Approaches: Retrieve-then-generate vs. active RAG
3. RAR Development: Self-Ask, ReAct, ReSearch, Search-R1, and other methods

Uncertainty Quantification

1. White-box Methods: Utilize token-level probabilities and entropy
2. Black-box Methods: Rely solely on final text output
3. Consistency Methods: Assess uncertainty through consistency across multiple generations
4. UQ in RAG: Limited research primarily focuses on document-response relationships

Uncertainty in Multi-step Decision Making

• SAUP Method: Learns to aggregate weights combining step-wise uncertainties
• Limitations: Depends on ground truth labels in test domain

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Method Effectiveness: R2C significantly outperforms existing UQ methods with average AUROC improvement exceeding 5%
2. Practical Value: Achieves significant improvements on abstention and model selection tasks
3. Efficiency Advantage: Demonstrates 2.5× improvement in token efficiency compared to baseline methods
4. Theoretical Contribution: First MDP-based framework for RAR uncertainty quantification

Limitations

1. Short-form QA Limitation: Primarily focuses on entity-level short answers without exploring long-form text generation
2. Action Design: Perturbation action design may require optimization for specific RAR systems
3. Computational Overhead: While efficiency is improved, multiple generations are still required
4. Domain Generalization: Generalization capability in specific domains requires further verification

Future Directions

1. Long-form Text Generation: Extend to uncertainty quantification for long-form text generation
2. Multimodal Applications: Extend methods to multimodal scenarios such as vision-language models
3. Action Optimization: Design improved perturbation actions for different RAR systems
4. Theoretical Analysis: Deepen analysis of uncertainty propagation mechanisms

In-depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Strong Innovation: First systematic solution to uncertainty quantification in RAR
2. Solid Theoretical Foundation: MDP-based formalization provides theoretical support
3. Comprehensive Experiments: Sufficient validation across multiple datasets, models, and downstream tasks
4. High Practical Value: Simple and easy-to-implement method with good practical application prospects
5. In-depth Analysis: Provides detailed diversity and efficiency analysis

Weaknesses

1. Perturbation Action Design: Action design is somewhat heuristic, lacking theoretical guidance
2. Computational Cost: While relatively efficient, multiple inferences are still required
3. Applicable Scope: Primarily validated on short-answer QA tasks
4. Baseline Selection: Some baseline methods may not be optimal comparison targets

Impact

1. Academic Contribution: Provides new perspectives for trustworthiness assessment of RAR systems
2. Practical Value: Can be directly applied to existing RAR systems
3. Reproducibility: Authors commit to open-sourcing code and data
4. Inspirational Significance: Provides a paradigm for uncertainty quantification in multi-step reasoning systems

Applicable Scenarios

1. High-risk Applications: Healthcare diagnosis, legal consultation, and other scenarios requiring trustworthiness assessment
2. Knowledge Question Answering: Complex multi-hop reasoning question answering systems
3. Model Ensemble: Scenarios requiring selection of the best answer from multiple models
4. User Interaction: Conversational systems requiring confidence information for users

References

The paper cites 67 relevant references covering important works in multiple research areas including retrieval-augmented generation, uncertainty quantification, and reasoning consistency, providing solid theoretical foundation and comparison benchmarks for this research.

Overall Assessment: This is a high-quality research paper that makes significant progress on an important and challenging problem. The method demonstrates strong innovation, reasonable experimental design, and convincing results. The paper contributes not only technically but also possesses significant practical value, providing an effective solution for trustworthiness assessment of RAR systems.