Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Search-augmented reasoning systems can reach correct answers while making errors in intermediate steps. Reliable auditing must check whether evidence D covers the question Q, reasoning T addresses Q, and T is grounded in D. We introduce GraphRail, which represents requirements, evidence, and reasoning as structured claims and compares them without a generative judge or gold answer. Across three multi-hop QA benchmarks and three reasoning frameworks, GraphRail improves error recall over generative verifiers while remaining stable under stochastic extraction. Its diagnoses can also guide online reasoning, providing a traceable way to detect and correct intermediate errors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jeon et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: