# Return or Revise? Learning When Revision Helps Retrieval-Augmented QA

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.30087 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.30087/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 44 of its 71 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

- Retrieval-augmented generation

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 44)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.04906/) (2020)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.03551/) (2017)
- [Billion-scale similarity search with GPUs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1702.08734/) (2017)
- [Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Critique through Self-Reflection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11511/) (2023)
- [MS MARCO: A Human Generated MAchine Reading COmprehension Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1611.09268/) (2016)
- [gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.10925/) (2025)
- [When Not to Trust Language Models: Investigating Effectiveness of Parametric and Non-Parametric Memories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10511/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [FrugalGPT: How to Use Large Language Models While Reducing Cost and Improving Performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.05176/) (2023)
- [Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.08500/) (2017)
- [Latent Retrieval for Weakly Supervised Open Domain Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.00300/) (2019)
- [Meta-learners for Estimating Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03461/) (2017)
- [Adaptive-RAG: Learning to Adapt Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models through Question Complexity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.14403/) (2024)
- [Training Language Models to Self-Correct via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12917/) (2024)
- [Document Ranking with a Pretrained Sequence-to-Sequence Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.06713/) (2020)
- [Hybrid LLM: Cost-Efficient and Quality-Aware Query Routing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.14618/) (2024)
- [Making Retrieval-Augmented Language Models Robust to Irrelevant Context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01558/) (2023)
- [Consistent Estimators for Learning to Defer to an Expert](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.01862/) (2020)
- [Recursive Partitioning for Heterogeneous Causal Effects](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1504.01132/) (2015)
- [Selective Question Answering under Domain Shift](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.09462/) (2020)
- [Predict Responsibly: Improving Fairness and Accuracy by Learning to Defer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.06664/) (2017)
- [Verify-and-Edit: A Knowledge-Enhanced Chain-of-Thought Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.03268/) (2023)
- [ClashEval: Quantifying the tug-of-war between an LLM's internal prior and external evidence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.10198/) (2024)
- [When Does Confidence-Based Cascade Deferral Suffice?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.02764/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [When Should an In-Context Learner Expand Its Hypothesis Space?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.09471/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We consider the decision of whether to return an existing draft answer or revise it using retrieved evidence, as in answer-revision systems. Draft confidence estimates whether the current answer is correct, but the decision requires estimating the effect of a specified revision. For offline training and evaluation, we grade both the returned draft and its candidate revision under the same correctness judge, which makes repair, harm, and the gap to an oracle observable. We call this paired effect its recoverability, and we train policies to predict it before revision. On 25,870 held-out open-domain questions across three revision setups, a scorer trained on the paired outcome has greater area under the accuracy--revision-rate curve than a matched draft-correctness scorer in all nine Llama setup--seed fits, and gains 0.23--0.68 accuracy points on average at development-selected thresholds, a difference significant across training runs only for dense retrieval. The resulting policy improves on always revising and on average closes more than a third of the oracle gap, although it still applies 38--46% of the harmful revisions. When a draft-free standard-RAG answer is also available, however, choosing between the draft and that answer is stronger by about two points for Llama and four for OLMo, and adding candidate revision as a third option yields no significant gain. Recoverability describes one revision; its value as an available action also depends on the alternatives.