arXiv:2607. 23006v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scientific question answering requires a retrieval system to solve two distinct problems: identifying which papers are relevant and locating the supporting evidence within those papers.
arXiv:2509. 16780v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) show promise as educational aids but often lack alignment with specific course materials.
The paper introduces RAG‑Stress, a diagnostic protocol that tests how retrieval‑augmented generation models handle misleading evidence. By fixing the question and reference answer, editing a single assertion to support an incorrect answer, and varying source‑priority policies and evidence positions, the study measures misleading rate (MR) and clean accuracy across fifteen systems on multiple QA datasets. Results show that prioritizing documents increases MR by 10.9–13.5 percentage points, with the highest MR when the misleading span appears at the end of the evidence.
arXiv:2608. 16185v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM agents increasingly answer questions over dynamic raw-document collections, where files may change before preprocessing, and relevant evidence (spans, sections, pages, or tables) is query-dependent.
LLM agents increasingly answer questions over dynamic raw-document collections, where files may change before preprocessing, and relevant evidence (spans, sections, pages, or tables) is query-dependent. Existing retrieval-augmented approaches pre-materialize evidence via fixed chunking, embeddings, or persistent indexes: effective for lookup, yet costly, stale-prone, and committed to a granularity before the query is known.
arXiv:2610.26951v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is the dominant paradigm for grounding large language models in external corpora, but its similarity-driven, chunk...
arXiv:2605. 06647v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented agents are increasingly the interface to large knowledge bases, yet most treat retrieval as a black box: they issue exploratory queries, inspect snippets, and reformulate until evidence emerges.
arXiv:2506.17585v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models can answer questions correctly and still hallucinate their citations. Most citation systems address this by retrieving docume...
arXiv:2608. 03860v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We introduce SciRet, a compute-aware empirical study of retrieval-augmented generation for scientific question answering over CORD-19.
The paper evaluates how robust large language models (LLMs) are when using retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG) in practical settings. It investigates whether RAG always outperforms non‑RAG approaches, whether adding more retrieved documents helps, and whether the order of documents matters, using a benchmark of 1,891 samples across five datasets and three task categories. Experiments with 11 LLMs show generally high retrieval robustness, but performance varies by task and prompting strategy, indicating that adopting RAG should be considered on a case‑by‑case basis.
The paper proposes an incremental pooled LLM evaluation method for selecting retrieval models in production Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems. By having a language model judge the union of documents retrieved by current candidates and expanding the pool only with new documents from added systems, the approach reuses judgments across all systems. Experiments on four benchmarks and a financial news QA deployment show strong correlation with gold-standard rankings, high preservation of pairwise orderings, and significant cost savings—up to 4.9× lower evaluation cost and 65–80% judgment reuse.
arXiv:2607. 24781v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: RAG systems rely on chunking, which destroys structural information in documents.