# Bridge Evidence: Static Retrieval Utility Does Not Predict Causal Utility in Multi-Step Agentic Search

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.15253 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.15253/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Web, search, and research agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 8 of its 15 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Web, search, and research agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/web-search-and-research-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.04906/) (2020)
- [HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.09600/) (2018)
- [Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Critique through Self-Reflection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11511/) (2023)
- [Measuring and Narrowing the Compositionality Gap in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03350/) (2022)
- [Interleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Step Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10509/) (2022)
- [Passage Re-ranking with BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.04085/) (2019)
- [Entity Labels Are Not Entity Signals: A Framework for Observable Relevance in Document Re-Ranking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.15998/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [What Would Fix This RAG Failure? Auditing Counterfactual Response with Paired Evidence Interventions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.08944/) (2026)
- [Testing and Evaluation of Agentic AI Systems In Military Command and Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.20597/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Retrieval systems are trained and evaluated on a static idea of usefulness: hand a document and a question to a reader model, see whether the answer improves, and score the document accordingly. The idea holds up when a document is read on its own. It breaks when a language model works as a search agent, issuing several queries and reasoning across turns, because a document can matter for what it lets the agent do next rather than for what it says about the current question. We measure that gap rather than argue it. Using a ReAct style agent over HotpotQA, we replay 1000 development questions and, for every document the agent read, delete it and re-run the rest of the trajectory from that point. Comparing the original run against its counterfactual gives a Counterfactual Trajectory Utility (CTU) score from three deltas: final answer quality, next query retrieval quality, and turn count. Crossing CTU against Static RAG Utility (SRU) over 23,322 document observations, the two are close to statistically independent (Spearman rho = -0.026). Roughly a third of the documents the agent reads are causally load bearing while looking useless to a static reader; we call these bridge documents. The pattern survives when the reader based axis is swapped for a BM25 and cross encoder proxy, giving a bridge cell of 27.2% on an evenly spread axis. A second experiment pins down the mechanism. Using the Observable Entity Relevance (OER) measure from prior work, entities that discriminate relevant from non-relevant candidates appear in the agent's next query 4.02 times more often than entities found only in non-relevant documents (6.1% vs 1.5%, n = 227,139). A bridge document earns its keep by handing the agent a discriminative entity that redirects the search. Static relevance and causal usefulness are different quantities in agentic retrieval, and optimizing the first does not deliver the second.