# Toward Faithful and Complete Answer Construction from a Single Document

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.06103 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.06103/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 9 of its 17 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 5 Feb 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10683/) (2019)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10601/) (2023)
- [SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08896/) (2023)
- [Decomposed Prompting: A Modular Approach for Solving Complex Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.02406/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Modern large language models (LLMs) are powerful generators driven by statistical next-token prediction. While effective at producing fluent text, this design biases models toward high-probability continuations rather than exhaustive and faithful answers grounded in source content. As a result, directly applying LLMs lacks systematic mechanisms to ensure both completeness (avoiding omissions) and faithfulness (avoiding unsupported content), which fundamentally conflicts with core AI safety principles. To address this limitation, we present EVE, a structured framework for document-grounded reasoning. Unlike free-form prompting, EVE constrains generation to a structured, verifiable pipeline that decomposes high-rigor reasoning into extraction, validation, and enumeration. Empirically, this design enables consistent and simultaneous improvements in recall, precision, and F1-score: recall and precision increase by up to 24% and 29%, respectively, with a corresponding 31% gain in F1-score. This effectively breaks the long-standing trade-off between coverage and accuracy typical of single-pass LLM generation, while also mitigating generation truncation caused by length limitations. At the same time, we emphasize that EVE exhibits performance saturation due to the inherent ambiguity of natural language, reflecting fundamental limits of language-based reasoning.