# A Triple-Robustness Analysis of Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Multi-Hop Requirements Traceability

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.00705 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.00705/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in RAG robustness and adaptive retrieval, one of 15 directions in Retrieval-augmented generation.
- Builds on 10 of its 27 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- Retrieval-augmented generation / [RAG robustness and adaptive retrieval](https://mlsanity.com/rag/rag-robustness-and-adaptive-retrieval/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Critique through Self-Reflection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11511/) (2023)
- [Search-R1: Training LLMs to Reason and Leverage Search Engines with Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.09516/) (2025)
- [MuSiQue: Multihop Questions via Single-hop Question Composition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.00573/) (2021)
- [Adaptive-RAG: Learning to Adapt Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models through Question Complexity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.14403/) (2024)
- [Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21819/) (2024)
- [MultiHop-RAG: Benchmarking Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Multi-Hop Queries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.15391/) (2024)
- [RAG vs. GraphRAG: A Systematic Evaluation and Key Insights](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.11371/) (2025)
- [Probing-RAG: Self-Probing to Guide Language Models in Selective Document Retrieval](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.13339/) (2024)
- [When +1% Is Not Enough: A Paired Bootstrap Protocol for Evaluating Small Improvements](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.19794/) (2025)
- [Leveraging Graph-RAG and Prompt Engineering to Enhance LLM-Based Automated Requirement Traceability and Compliance Checks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.08593/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Reported verdicts on GraphRAG versus vector RAG disagree, and the evidence is typically tied to a single corpus, embedder, and judge -- and, we show, to where citation quality is measured. We present a triple-robustness analysis that holds a five-pipeline architecture matrix fixed and varies embedder (local e5-small vs. Azure text-embedding-3-small), corpus (DO-178C typed-edge requirements vs. Wikipedia paragraph chains via MuSiQue), and judge (paired GPT-5.4 x GPT-4.1 on both corpora), over 2x4,440 main-matrix runs, 600 cross-corpus runs, and over 5,000 faithfulness judgments. (C2a) GraphRAG's graph walk floods the context window at precision 0.12-0.23, but the synthesizer cites selectively at precision 0.48-0.65; scoring the retrieved set as the attribution set inverts the architecture ranking, which reconciles part of the disagreement in prior reports. (C1) Answer-level citation winners are corpus- and stratum-conditional but embedder-robust: GraphRAG ties vanilla on short-hop DO-178C queries and wins every MuSiQue stratum, while agentic pipelines lead only on 3+-hop requirements queries. (C2b) Faithfulness is corpus-conditional: on DO-178C it declines with hop distance (trend p<0.05 in three of four judge x embedder combinations); on Wikipedia chains neither judge shows a collapse. (C3) Single-judge LLM faithfulness is fragile to retrieval state: GPT-5.4's self-kappa across embedders is 0.137 (41% verdict change) against a same-day test-retest floor of 0.76, and re-judging frozen inputs eleven weeks later gives kappa <= 0.14 for both judges. A learned router on dense embeddings alone reaches macro-F1 0.86 on hop classification (C4). We argue that RAG architecture claims should be tested at this level of robustness -- including robustness to the citation-measurement point -- before they are trusted.