Retrieval-augmented large language models frequently face contexts that interleave useful evidence with misleading statements or instruction-like content. Blanket refusal discards valid evidence, whereas uncritical adoption yields incorrect or unsafe answers.
arXiv:2607. 20090v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented large language models frequently face contexts that interleave useful evidence with misleading statements or instruction-like content.
DynaKRAG is a unified framework that learns a state‑conditioned policy to control evidence acquisition in multi‑hop retrieval‑augmented generation. It uses a deterministic validity layer to build an action set, a learned continuation gate to decide between generating an answer or gathering more evidence, and an advantage scorer to rank evidence operations by predicted gain. Across HotpotQA, 2Wiki, and MuSiQue with various backbone models, DynaKRAG achieves top EM and F1 scores, improves token and retrieval efficiency, and enables terminal evidence compression that reduces context size while boosting answer quality.
arXiv:2606. 05263v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards improves reasoning and tool use, yet long-horizon language agents still learn unsupported evidence chains, belief drift, and shortcut actions that satisfy terminal checks.
arXiv:2512. 11614v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) relies on retrieved context to guide large language models (LLM), yet treats the retrieval as a heuristic rather than verifiable evidence -- leading to unsupported answers, hallucinations, and reliance on spurious context.
arXiv:2609.37469v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds large language models in external sources, but retrieved passages often name the right entities without...
The paper introduces TrustSwap, a counterfactual test that swaps or removes source reliability labels while keeping evidence text constant, to evaluate how retrieval‑augmented fact‑checking models respond across verdict, confidence, and search decisions. Experiments on untrained and RL‑trained models show that confidence and search largely follow labels, yet label changes can flip a significant portion of verdicts, especially in larger models. The authors propose trust‑swap augmentation (TSA) to mitigate this shortcut, demonstrating reduced verdict flip rates and maintained accuracy in several settings, though its effectiveness diminishes at larger model scales.
arXiv:2607. 10738v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recent advances in equipping Large Language Models (LLMs) with search tools and outcome-reward reinforcement learning (RL) have achieved new state-of-the-art results on open-domain QA tasks.
arXiv:2608. 02087v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Post-training Large Language Models (LLMs) with Reinforcement Learning (RL) has become an important tool for improving model capabilities, but the LLM action-space structure introduces challenges distinct from classical RL, with implications for inducing exploration.
arXiv:2607. 09492v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reinforcement learning (RL) is increasingly used to align multimodal large language models (MLLMs), but higher rewards do not always imply better task performance.
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...
The paper investigates how different reward specifications affect the reliability of unlearning in large language models using a LoRA-GRPO framework. It compares four reward designs—lexical suppression, anti-refusal shaping, rubric-based broad answering, and explicit refusal contrast—both with and without a supervised fine-tuning warm-up. The results reveal that successful optimization does not guarantee behavioral unlearning, as various evaluation metrics can yield conflicting conclusions due to reward-hacking, policy-support limits, and benchmark probe limitations.
arXiv:2606. 03980v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reward models (RMs) provide critical feedback signals for LLM post-training, notably in reinforced fine-tuning (RFT) and reinforcement learning (RL) pipelines.