arXiv:2608.29307v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Language models increasingly answer questions by consulting retrieved documents rather than memory alone, a design now common in search assistants an...
arXiv:2601.19918v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Hallucinations in Large Language Models (LLMs), i.e., plausible but non-factual generations, pose a significant challenge to reliable deployment in...
arXiv:2607. 10491v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation grounds large language models in external evidence, but most pipelines still treat retrieved passages as deterministic and mutually consistent context.
arXiv:2602.11166v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) methods are widely used to adapt large language models (LLMs) to downstream tasks and are often assume...
The paper introduces a penalty‑aware evaluation framework for Retrieval‑Augmented Generation (RAG) systems that uses asymmetric scoring, knowledge‑gap canaries, and a failure‑attribution pipeline. Applying this framework to three commercial RAG products and a baseline on SimpleQA‑Verified, the authors find that while overall accuracy is similar across systems, canary violation rates vary dramatically, showing that systems differ more in when they answer than in what they answer. The study demonstrates that penalty‑aware scoring can reorder system rankings and is robust across different penalty settings.
arXiv:2603. 21607v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: While retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) significantly improves the factual reliability of LLMs, it does not eliminate hallucinations, so robust uncertainty quantification (UQ) remains essential.
arXiv:2605.27016v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can hallucinate, but do model uncertainty estimators reliably reveal when they do? Although uncertainty estimato...
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:2609.09243v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds a language model in retrieved documents, which reduces hallucination but creates a new attack surface: i...
arXiv:2605. 03534v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds answers in retrieved passages, yet relevance does not guarantee sufficiency: a topical passage may still fail to justify the answer.
ConfRAG introduces a confidence-guided approach to reduce hallucinations in large language models and selectively trigger Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) only when the model is uncertain. The ConfQA fine‑tuning strategy trains the model to answer correctly or respond with "I am unsure," achieving a drop in hallucination rates from 20‑40% to below 5% across factuality benchmarks. Building on ConfQA, ConfRAG limits external retrievals by more than 30% while maintaining over 95% accuracy in ideal scenarios.
arXiv:2607. 04223v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) reduces but does not eliminate hallucination, and existing detectors return a single answer-level score that does not indicate which sentence is unsupported, or why.