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.
By Yin Huang, Yifan Ethan Xu, Kai Sun, Vera Yan, Alicia Sun, Haidar Khan, Jimmy Nguyen, Jingxiang Chen, Mohammad Kachuee, Zhaojiang Lin, Yue Liu, Aaron Colak, Anuj Kumar, Wen-tau Yih, Xin Luna Dong
ReliableRAG is a new framework for Retrieval-Augmented Generation that tackles misinformation in multi‑hop question answering. It extracts structured triples from retrieved documents, evaluates each triple’s reliability by combining semantic relevance to the query with credibility, and keeps only the top‑K reliable, non‑redundant triples. Using these refined triples, the system builds robust reasoning chains that filter out deceptive misinformation and produce accurate, trustworthy answers.
By Jinpu Jiang, Xuan Wu, Wenhao Song, Bo Yang, You Zhou, Hongwei Ge, Heow Pueh Lee, Yanchun Liang, Chunguo Wu
arXiv:2607. 24097v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Memory-augmented LLM agents typically answer queries by retrieving relevant memories and feeding them directly to an answer model.
By Yiwen Ma, Songjun Tu, Qichao Zhang, Dong Li, Linjing Li, Dongbin Zhao
arXiv:2606. 20245v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance across a wide range of language-based tasks by leveraging both extensive parametric knowledge and in-context learning ability, enabling them to incorporate external information provided in the input prompt.
By Huang Peng, Jiuyang Tang, Weixin Zeng, Hao Xu, Xiang Zhao
arXiv:2509.20377v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has significantly improved the performance of large language models (LLMs) on knowledge-intensive tasks...
By Tomoaki Isoda
arXiv:2607. 10463v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) extends static RAG by allowing language models to iteratively reason, generate search queries, retrieve evidence, and predict answers.
By Varun Gandhi, Jaewook Lee, Shantanu Todmal, Franck Dernoncourt, Ryan Rossi, Zichao Wang, Andrew Lan
arXiv:2509. 23071v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) agent development is hindered by the lack of executable ground-truth agent-environment interaction trajectories.
By Muzhi Li, Jinhu Qi, Yihong Wu, Minghao Zhao, Liheng Ma, Yifan Li, Xinyu Wang, Zhenghan Tai, Zixing Song, Yingxue Zhang, Ho-fung Leung, Irwin King
arXiv:2606. 00432v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems scale, it becomes increasingly challenging to ensure faithful grounding in external evidence.
By Ibne Farabi Shihab, Fariya Afrin, Sanjeda Akter, Anuj Sharma
arXiv:2606. 29090v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become the standard way to ground large language models in external knowledge, yet most systems retrieve a fixed number of passages for every question regardless of its difficulty.
By Ansh Kamthan
arXiv:2504. 07385v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly used for question-answering (QA), relying on static, pre-annotated references for evaluation poses significant challenges in cost, scalability, and completeness.
By Sher Badshah, Ali Emami, Hassan Sajjad
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become the standard way to ground large language models in external knowledge, yet most systems retrieve a fixed number of passages for every question regardless of its difficulty. This wastes computation on easy questions, starves hard ones, and gives no signal for when a generated answer can be trusted.
The paper investigates whether incorporating an evidence-support signal into retrieval evaluation for retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG) improves downstream decision‑making. Across multiple benchmarks and a TREC RAG 2025 setting, the evidence signal alters retriever rankings but its benefits vary: it does not consistently enhance retriever training, its usefulness for system selection depends on generator instructions, and it does not reliably predict answer quality on unseen topics. Human filtering of evidence‑rich passages preserves useful content, yet evaluators disagree on whether this improves final answers, indicating that evidence‑aware evaluation alone does not guarantee better downstream outcomes.
By Utshab Kumar Ghosh, Debayan Mukhopadhyay, Shubham Chatterjee