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.
By S M Asif Hossain, Ruksat Khan Shayoni, M. F. Mridha
arXiv:2609.07075v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is commonly evaluated by whether the final answer is correct. That test is insufficient: an answer can match its r...
By Ramon Gonzalez, Antonio Diaz
arXiv:2606. 26437v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Existing metrics for factuality and faithfulness evaluate whether an answer is supported or contradicted by its grounding documents, but they fail to capture when both supporting and contradicting evidence coexist.
By Siyi Liu, Aaron Halfaker, Dan Roth, Patrick Xia
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:2607. 22584v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation pipelines rank retrieved documents by semantic similarity alone, without accounting for source provenance or credibility.
By Yuktha Tata Koganti, Hugo Garrido-Lestache Belinchon
arXiv:2608. 03177v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: How can question answering (QA) systems determine whether a query is ambiguous?
By Jiwon Lee, Yong-chan Park, Jungin Hong, U Kang