Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the stability and structure of reader-specific evidence utility in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems, revealing significant variability in how different readers interpret evidence. The authors find that while reader-specific preferences can improve performance, they do not translate into consistent intervention effectiveness across different contexts, with a notable 33% disagreement on effect signs among readers. Ultimately, the research highlights that stable ordinal preferences do not guarantee reliable transfer of intervention outcomes, challenging assumptions about the utility of model-specific differences in decision-making.
Reader-specific preferences can enhance performance, but they don't ensure consistent intervention success across contexts鈥攈ighlighting a critical gap in our understanding of evidence utility in ML systems.
ML systems increasingly condition decisions on downstream model identity, but this is useful only if model-specific differences form reusable structure rather than input-local interactions. We test this in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), where evidence utility can be measured under controlled interventions. Holding query, evidence, task, scoring, and intervention fixed, nine readers disagree on effect sign in 33\% of jointly affected cells; reader$\times$query interaction explains 29.8\% of utility variance versus an 8.4\% permutation null; and self-selected evidence improves F1 by $+0.031$ ($t=3.39$). We then ask the sharper question: \emph{which components of this heterogeneity are stable reader properties across queries?} Separating three measurable objects---evidence \emph{activity}, \emph{ordinal preference}, and \emph{conditional signed direction}---we find ordinal reader geometry stable across four independent settings (split-half $\rho=0.60$--$0.83$): leave-one-out interventions, PRISM preferences, RAMDocs, and RAGuard. Signed geometry is task-bounded: weak in open-ended QA (0.14, 0.35), especially for misleading and irrelevant evidence, but strong in binary fact-checking (0.75) with no significant ordinal gap, though still below its sparsity-matched ceiling. Sparsity, decoding noise, and metric artifacts do not explain the main ordinal--signed gap. Finally, stable ordinal similarity fails to predict cross-reader intervention transfer (oracle-distance $\rho=-0.27$; regret reliability $-0.28$). Reader-specific utility exists, but preference is not intervention: stable ranking similarity does not license transfer of help/harm decisions.
