Insider Knowledge: How Much Can RAG Systems Gain from Evaluation Secrets?

RAG systems are increasingly evaluated and optimized using LLM judges, an approach that is rapidly becoming the dominant paradigm for system assessment. Nugget-based approaches in particular are now embedded not only in evaluation frameworks but also in the architectures of RAG systems themselves. While this integration can lead to genuine improvements, it also creates a risk of faulty measurements due to circularity. In this paper, we investigate this risk through comparative experiments with nugget-based RAG systems, including Ginger and Crucible, against strong baselines such as GPT-Researcher. By deliberately modifying Crucible to generate outputs optimized for an LLM judge, we show that near-perfect evaluation scores can be achieved when elements of the evaluation - such as prompt templates or gold nuggets - are leaked or can be predicted. Our results highlight the importance of blind evaluation settings and methodological diversity to guard against mistaking metric overfitting for genuine system progress.

Incorporating Q&A Nuggets into Retrieval-Augmented Generation

RAGE systems integrate ideas from automatic evaluation (E) into Retrieval-augmented Generation (RAG). As one such example, we present Crucible, a Nugget-Augmented Generation System that preserves explicit citation provenance by constructing a bank of Q&A nuggets from retrieved documents and uses them to guide extraction, selection, and report generation. Reasoning on nuggets avoids repeated information through clear and interpretable Q&A semantics - instead of opaque cluster abstractions - while maintaining citation provenance throughout the entire generation process. Evaluated on the TREC NeuCLIR 2024 collection, our Crucible system substantially outperforms Ginger, a recent nugget-based RAG system, in nugget recall, density, and citation grounding.

Reasoning Models Will Blatantly Lie About Their Reasoning

It has been shown that Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) may not *say what they think*: they do not always volunteer information about how certain parts of the input influence their reasoning. But it is one thing for a model to *omit* such information and another, worse thing to *lie* about it. Here, we extend the work of Chen et al. (2025) to show that LRMs will do just this: they will flatly deny relying on hints provided in the prompt in answering multiple choice questions -- even when directly asked to reflect on unusual (i.e. hinted) prompt content, even when allowed to use hints, and even though experiments *show* them to be using the hints. Our results thus have discouraging implications for CoT monitoring and interpretability.

How Grounded is Wikipedia? A Study on Structured Evidential Support

Wikipedia is a critical resource for modern NLP, serving as a rich repository of up-to-date and citation-backed information on a wide variety of subjects. The reliability of Wikipedia -- its groundedness in its cited sources -- is vital to this purpose. This work provides a quantitative analysis of the extent to which Wikipedia *is* so grounded and of how readily grounding evidence may be retrieved. To this end, we introduce PeopleProfiles -- a large-scale, multi-level dataset of claim support annotations on Wikipedia articles of notable people. We show that roughly 20% of claims in Wikipedia *lead* sections are unsupported by the article body; roughly 27% of annotated claims in the article *body* are unsupported by their (publicly accessible) cited sources; and >80% of lead claims cannot be traced to these sources via annotated body evidence. Further, we show that recovery of complex grounding evidence for claims that *are* supported remains a challenge for standard retrieval methods.

Cross-Document Event-Keyed Summarization

Event-keyed summarization (EKS) requires generating a summary about a specific event described in a document, given the document and an event representation extracted from it. In this work, we extend EKS to the cross-document setting (CDEKS), in which summaries must synthesize information from accounts of the same event given by multiple sources. We introduce SEAMUS (Summaries of Events Across Multiple Sources), a high-quality dataset for CDEKS based on an expert reannotation of the FAMUS dataset for cross-document argument extraction. We present a suite of baselines on SEAMUS, covering both smaller, fine-tuned models, as well as zero- and few-shot prompted LLMs, along with detailed ablations, and a human evaluation study, showing SEAMUS to be a valuable benchmark for this new task.