Pinyan Qian
Publications
BAP-SQL: Budget-Aware Observation Planning for Agentic Text-to-SQL
Tool-using agents do not merely consume observations: their actions determine what arrives next. In agentic text-to-SQL, a broad query can spend context and database work before useful evidence appears, while post-hoc compression cannot recover omitted rows or expended work. We present BAP-SQL, which treats observation formation as a budget-control stage: it estimates query risk, rewrites SQL when useful, and delegates hard limits to an independent runtime shield. Across general 4B, specialized FINER-SQL 4B, and 7B backbones, BAP-SQL improves tight-budget success. On the primary BIRD-derived setting, it gains 3.4/3.6 percentage points over matched SFT while using 4.5/5.0% fewer tokens. Matched retraining and task-level transfer associate the gain with policy-visible planning and budget-sensitive rescue. The benefit attenuates as model capability and budget increase, reverses at the loosest setting, and does not reduce database work.
When Should Active RAG Retrieve? A Budget-Aware Evaluation of Utility, Calibration, and Cost
Active RAG systems decide when to retrieve external knowledge during generation, making them a budget-sensitive case of agentic RAG and self-adaptive retrieval. Yet evaluations often leave the operating point underspecified: two systems may both claim a 50% evidence-usage budget while realizing different held-out usage rates, so higher accuracy can reflect a looser budget rather than a better retrieval policy. We study budget-aware evaluation for Active RAG by recasting active retrieval as utility estimation, where retrieval is valuable only through its marginal correctness change over a no-retrieval answer. This view separates three questions that single-point evaluations conflate: whether trigger scores rank useful retrieval decisions, whether thresholds calibrated on past data meet future budgets, and how trigger-side computation changes deployment cost. We operationalize these questions with exact top-k utility frontiers, deployable threshold frontiers, conservative budget frontiers, harm audits, and cost decompositions. Across knowledge-intensive multi-hop QA datasets and open instruction models, retrieval harm is non-negligible, router rankings change across datasets and budgets, nominal thresholds can miss target usage, and simple uncertainty or retrieval-score baselines often rival learned utility routers. Budget-aware Active RAG evaluations should therefore report frontiers, realized usage, threshold-transfer error, harm rates, and cost decompositions alongside accuracy.
Operational Reframing and Approval-Framed Delegation in Multi-Agent LLM Safety
Safety evaluations of multi-agent LLM systems often compare a direct prompt with a planner-executor pipeline and report the difference as a single "pipeline effect." We argue that this aggregate is difficult to interpret because it conflates three mechanisms: harmful intent may be reframed as plausible operational work, the planner may refuse or transform the request, and the executor may act under delegation prompts implying prior approval. To separate these factors, we introduce a five-condition controlled contrast design, evaluated on 30 synthetic harmful scenarios and an exploratory external validation set from four agent-safety benchmarks using LLM-judged compliance. Our results show that aggregate pipeline safety is not a stable architectural property. Operational reframing is the most portable risk signal, increasing compliance for GPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek across both scenario sets, while Claude is comparatively resistant. Planner behavior can offset this risk mainly through refusal; however, when the planner produces executable steps, the executor may become more compliant than under the direct operational baseline. Approval-framed delegation is sensitive to prompt design, model pairing, and scenario source, and a skeptical executor prompt sharply reduces compliance. Raw-direct model rankings can also mispredict deployed planner-executor behavior. Gemini is safest under raw direct prompts in the primary set yet shows the largest amplification with a Claude planner, rising from 8.9 percent to 38.9 percent compliance. GPTs near-zero aggregate pipeline effect instead hides a reframing increase canceled by planner refusal. These findings suggest that multi-agent safety evaluations should report reframing, planner behavior, delegation framing, and model pairing separately before attributing failures to architecture itself.
Relevant Is Not Warranted: Evidence-Force Calibration for Cited RAG
Cited RAG evaluation often treats visible sources as a grounding signal, but a real, topically relevant citation can still under-warrant the attached wording. We study this diagnostic failure as citation laundering: a related source is presented as warrant for an over-strong claim. We introduce FORCEBENCH, a contrastive stress test for evidence-force calibration. Each item holds a cited passage fixed and pairs an evidence-calibrated claim with a localized force-raised variant across five operational axes: relation, modality, scope, temporal validity, and numeric specificity. A calibrated evaluator should score the evidence-calibrated claim higher. Headline experiments use a fixed, locality-filtered 198-pair evaluation set. A citation-presence sanity check is uninformative by design; token and entity overlap still violate monotonicity on 32.8--36.4% of pairs. Across four reported model judges, standard generic support prompting is insufficient for this force-calibration stress test (aggregate MVR 47.2%), while explicit warrant-strength prompting lowers MVR to 24.5% but remains imperfect. We release the benchmark, prompts, outputs, and plug-in pipeline so citation evaluators can report monotonicity violation rate and force sensitivity alongside conventional support metrics.
Does RAG Know When Retrieval Is Wrong? Diagnosing Context Compliance under Knowledge Conflict
The Context-Compliance Regime in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) occurs when retrieved context dominates the final answer even when it conflicts with the model's parametric knowledge. Accuracy alone does not reveal how retrieved context causally shapes answers under such conflict. We introduce Context-Driven Decomposition (CDD), a belief-decomposition probe that operates at inference time and serves as an intervention mechanism for controlled retrieval conflict. Across Epi-Scale stress tests, TruthfulQA misconception injection, and cross- model reruns, CDD exposes three patterns. P1: context compliance is measurable in an upper-bound adversarial setting, where Standard RAG reaches 15.0% accuracy on TruthfulQA misconception injection (N=500). P2: adversarial accuracy gains transfer across model families: CDD improves accuracy on Gemini-2.5-Flash and on Claude Haiku/Sonnet/Opus, but rationale-answer causal coupling does not transfer. CDD reaches 64.1% mistake- injection causal sensitivity on Gemini-2.5-Flash, while sensitivities for all three Claude variants fall in the [-3%, +7%] range, suggesting that the Claude-side accuracy gains operate through a mechanism distinct from the explicit conflict-resolution trace. P3: explicit conflict decomposition improves robustness under temporal drift and noisy distractors, with CDD reaching 71.3% on temporal shifts and 69.9% on distractor evidence on the full Epi-Scale adversarial benchmark. These three patterns identify context-compliance as a structural axis along which standard RAG can be probed and intervened on, distinct from retrieval-quality or single-method robustness questions, and motivate releasing Epi-Scale for systematic study across model families and retrieval pipelines.