AI Conversation Agent Reranking for Reasoning-Intensive Queries

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) LLMs lack cognitive processes for generating responses to reasoning-intensive tasks, leading to challenges in accurately answering complex queries.

Innovation Solution

A RAG LLM framework that performs a series of operations including query analysis, document summarization, and reranking to improve reasoning capabilities, using smaller and less costly LLMs for document analysis and relevance judgement, enhancing computational efficiency and accuracy.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If a RAG LLM is used to generate responses for reasoning-intensive tasks, then the system can handle complex queries, but the model lacks cognitive processes leading to reduced accuracy

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveability to handle reasoning-intensive tasksVSAvoidaccuracy of responses
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The system segments the response generation process into multiple stages: initial retrieval of documents, analysis by a first LLM to extract key information, reranking by a second LLM to identify most relevant documents, and final response generation. This segmentation allows each component to specialize in specific cognitive tasks, improving overall accuracy for reasoning-intensive queries.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces intermediary LLM components (first LLM and second LLM) that act as mediators between the retrieved documents and the final response generation. These intermediary models perform analysis and reranking to add cognitive processing layers, enhancing the accuracy of responses for complex reasoning tasks.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Measurement precision

If a RAG LLM performs document analysis and reranking operations, then reasoning capabilities improve, but computational cost and resource requirements increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvereasoning capabilitiesVSAvoidcomputational cost
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSUse of energy by moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The computational workload is segmented across two specialized LLMs: the first LLM handles document analysis and summarization, while the second LLM performs reranking based on reasoning relevance. This segmentation distributes computational cost across multiple smaller, specialized models rather than requiring one large model to perform all functions, reducing overall computational requirements.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs partial analysis on all retrieved documents through the first LLM, then applies the second LLM only to rerank the most promising candidates. This partial action approach applies intensive computational processing only where necessary, rather than uniformly processing all documents, thereby reducing total computational cost while maintaining reasoning capabilities.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Data Source

PatentUS12499115B1Systems and methods for a reasoning-intensive reranking based artificial intelligence conversation agent
Publication Date: 2025.12.16 SALESFORCE INC
  • US12499115B1 patent drawing
  • US12499115B1 patent drawing
  • US12499115B1 patent drawing

AI summary

Embodiments described herein provide a method for building an artificial intelligence (AI) agent to respond to a user query. The method includes: receiving a user query; retrieving a set of documents that are ranked based on respective relevance scores of a first type to the user query; generating a core question that filters out irrelevant texts from the user query; generating a first summary of a first document from the set of documents and a first reasoning output explaining how the first summary addresses the core question; generating a relevance score of a second type and a corresponding reranking for the first document based at least in part on a combination of the core question and the first reasoning output; generating a response to the user query using one or more top-ranked documents according to generated rerankings of the set of documents.