arXiv AI
Detecting and Repairing Hallucinations in Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv AI
2d ago
A Hierarchical Consistency Framework for Auditing Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems
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...
arXiv Computation and Language
2d ago
In RAG We Trust? Measuring Robustness of Retrieval-Augmented Generation Under Document Poisoning
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 AI
Aug 28
Why RAGs Hallucinate: Penalty-Aware Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems with Knowledge-Gap Canaries
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 AI
Aug 24
Knowing but Not Saying: Preventing Factual Access Failures in LLM SFT via Recall-Anchored Distillation
The paper identifies a specific issue in supervised fine‑tuning (SFT) of large language models called factual access failure, where models can recognize correct facts under constrained tests but fail to generate them in open‑ended settings. It demonstrates that SFT can cause both genuine wrong answers and expression‑level errors such as verbosity or formatting mismatches. To mitigate this, the authors propose Recall‑Anchored Distillation (RAD), a self‑distillation method that aligns the fine‑tuned model with the base model’s soft output distribution on unlabeled out‑of‑distribution text, thereby recovering lost factual recall without needing labeled data.
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 27
From Passive Response to Proactive Correction: Enhancing LLM Robustness Against Input Fact Perturbations
The paper introduces DEDUCE, a three‑stage framework that turns large language models into proactive error correctors by detecting input fact errors, devising correction strategies, and delivering reliable answers. It also presents MisFactQA, a dataset of factual errors, and new metrics for robustness evaluation. Experiments on TruthfulQA, FalseQA, and MisFactQA show significant gains in accuracy and error correction across Qwen, LLaMA, and Gemma models.
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 28
Assessing the Downstream Utility of Evidence-Aware Retrieval in RAG
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.