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.
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: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...
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.
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: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: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.
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:2510. 11686v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Reinforcement learning (RL) promises to expand the capabilities of language models, but it is unclear if current RL techniques promote the discovery of novel behaviors, or simply sharpen those already present in the base model.
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...
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. However, we argue that current training paradigms harbor a critical vulnerability: they predominantly reward correct answers but fail to penalize fabricated ones when retrieval fails, thereby implicitly exacerbating hallucinations.
arXiv:2609.00470v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) grounds large language models in external corpora, but implicit trust in retrieved documents creates a critical at...
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.