CRAFT: Calibrated Reasoning with Answer-Faithful Traces via Reinforcement Learning for Multi-Hop Question Answering

Yu Liu, Wenxiao Zhang, Diandian Guo, Cong Cao, Fangfang Yuan, Qiang Sun, Yanbing Liu, Jin B. Hong, Zhiyuan Ma · Feb 1, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Retrieval-augmented large language models, when optimized with outcome-level rewards, can achieve strong answer accuracy on multi-hop questions. However, under noisy retrieval, models frequently suffer from "right-answer-wrong-reason failures": they may exploit spurious shortcuts or produce reasoning traces weakly grounded in the supporting evidence. Furthermore, the lack of structured output control prevents reliable auditing of the underlying reasoning quality. To address this, we propose CRAFT (Calibrated Reasoning with Answer-Faithful Traces), a reinforcement learning framework for the response generation stage of retrieval-augmented multi-hop question answering. CRAFT trains models to produce structured reasoning traces with configurable levels of auditability (e.g., by selectively retaining planning, evidence citation, or reasoning steps). Training combines two complementary forms of supervision: deterministic rewards enforce verifiable constraints, including format compliance, answer correctness, and citation-set validity, while a judge-based reward audits semantic faithfulness by evaluating reasoning consistency and evidence grounding. Experiments show that CRAFT improves both answer accuracy and reasoning faithfulness across model scales. Notably, semantic judge-based rewards improve answer accuracy rather than compromise it, enabling CRAFT (7B) to achieve performance competitive with strong closed-source models.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.