Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has demonstrated strong effectiveness in knowledge-intensive tasks by grounding language generation in external evidence. Despite its success, many existing RAG systems are built based on a ranking-centric, asymmetric dependency paradigm, where the generation quality of the generator is highly dependent on reranking results of the reranker. To overcome this limitation, we propose Cooperative Retrieval-Augmented Generation (CoRAG), a framework that treats the reranker and the generator as peer decision-makers rather than being connected through an asymmetric dependency pipeline. By jointly optimizing their behaviors toward a shared task objective, the reranker and generator are encouraged to cooperate, ensuring that document reranking and generation work in concert to improve the final response. Experimental results demonstrate good generalization and improved generation stability of CoRAG, even when the model is trained on only around 10K PopQA samples. Our model released in https://github.com/CoderrrSong/CoRAG.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison with previous works. Previous works assume an asymmetric dependency between the reranker and the generator, whereas CoRAG treats them as equal participants optimized under a shared task-oriented reward.
Figure 2: CoRAG overview. The reranker and generator cooperate to generate responses. The task-oriented reward derived from response guides GRPO-aligned training of the reranker and GRPO optimization of the generator.
Dataset
Train
Test
PopQA
12,868
1,399
TriviaQA
78,785
11,313
NaturalQuestions
79,168
3,610
ASQA
4,353
948
2WikiMultiHopQA
167,454
12,576
Table 1: Dataset statistics.
Method
PopQA
TriviaQA
NQ
2WikiMultiHopQA
ASQA
(acc)
(acc)
(acc)
(acc)
(em)
(pre)
(rec)
Baselines w/o Retrieval
Vanilla Zero-shot Prompting
ChatGPT
29.3
74.3
–
–
35.3
–
–
Llama-3-Instruct 8B
22.8
69.4
46.6
45.6
30.6
–
–
Llama-3-Instruct 70B
28.9
80.6
57.9
57.5
39.1
–
–
Table 2: Overall results of our method and baselines on five benchmarks. Baseline results are reported in InstructRAG Wei et al. (2024) . - indicates the results are not reported or not applicable. The best and second-best performances are highlighted in bold and with an underline, respectively. Notably, our model is trained only on PopQA Mallen et al. (2023) , while all other datasets are used exclusively for evaluation.
PopQA
NQ
TriviaQA
2Wiki
RTrain
66.19
62.71
75.57
49.36
GTrain
66.54
63.37
76.25
51.53
RGReplace
65.83
63.21
74.97
49.72
GReplace
66.26
62.46
75.00
50.00
RReplace
70.12
69.77
80.76
56.05
CoRAG (Ours)
71.26
72.49
81.00
58.26
Table 3: Ablation study.
Figure 3: Cross-validation results with different reranker and generator combinations (Top-3 setting).
Figure 4: Impact of the document number.
Metric
Llama-3-Instruct 8B
InstructRAG
CoRAG
human-eval
pass@1
64.45
55.85
63.96
pass@10
83.53
76.82
85.97
human-eval+
pass@1
56.58
49.26
57.43
pass@10
77.43
70.12
79.26
Table 4: The cross-task evaluation. The InstructRAG in the table is trained on the Pop dataset. WTQ represents WikiTable Questions. The best and second-best performances are highlighted in bold and with an underline.
Method
InstructRAG
RetRobust
CoRAG
Pattern-based
66.19
56.68
71.26
LlaMa
75.63
25.52
89.21
GPT
60.83
54.90
65.90
DeepSeek
59.69
34.10
64.26
Qwen
60.69
57.26
66.12
Average
64.60
45.69
71.35
Table 5: Evaluation with LLM-as-a-judge (PopQA).
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Prompt : You are an expert evaluator for large model responses. Your core task is to determine whether the large model’s response points to any of the correct answers. Please conduct the evaluation based on the following information: 1. Question: {question} 2. List of correct answers: {answers} 3. Large model’s response: {response} Evaluation Rules: 1. If the core information and key content of the large model’s response point to any answer in the correct answer list (semantic consistency is acceptable, no need for word-for-word matching), please output "yes". 2. If the large model’s response deviates from all correct answers, contains obvious errors, or fails to effectively respond to the question, please output "no". 3. You only need to output a single word: either "yes" or "no", without any additional redundant content.
Output : yes
Appendix
Table 6: Prompt of LLM-as-a-Judge
Prompt : You are tasked with answering the given question by analyzing a set of documents. Please follow this STRICT TWO-STEP PROCESS: — ### STEP 1: Document Analysis For each document: - First, extract potentially relevant information from the original document. This includes facts, names, dates, or statements that may relate to the question, even if the connection is not immediately obvious. - Then, explain the reason for the information extraction in your previous step based on the question. (e.g., how the document addresses the question’s focus). ### STEP 2: Final Answer - Summarize your answer to the question based on the analysis above. - If none of the documents are helpful or relevant, answer based on your own general knowledge. In that case, clearly state that you are doing so. — Use the following format for your response: ### Step 1: Document Analysis Document 1: - Extraction: … - Explanation: … Document 2: - Extraction: … - Explanation: … ### Step 2: Final Answer Well-supported answer, based on the relevant documents. If no relevant documents, answer based on general knowledge and say so explicitly. — EXAMPLE: Question: Who is the author of The Mahdi? ### Step 1: Document Analysis Document 1: - Extraction: ’Mahdi’ is a thriller novel by Philip Nicholson written in 1981 under the identity of a. J. Quinnell … - Explanation: This document directly states that the author of ’Mahdi’ is Philip Nicholson. Upon re-examining the question "Who is the author of The Mahdi?", the document mentions the corresponding book title and provides the author information requested. Document 2: - Extraction: ’The Mahdi’ was published by Philip Nicholson in 1981 under the pen name A.J. Quinnell, establishing his presence in the thriller genre with a novel known for its gripping plot and enduring popularity… - Explanation: This document directly states that ’The Mahdi’ was published by Philip Nicholson. Upon re-examining the question "Who is the author of The Mahdi?", the document mentions the corresponding book title and provides the author information requested. ### Step 2: Final Answer Based on Documents 1 and 2, The answer to question ’Who is the author of The Mahdi?’ is A.J. Quinnell, a pseudonym of Philip Nicholson. — Now it is your turn to analyze the following documents and answer the given question by following the two-step process. {context} {question}
Appendix
Table 7: Prompt of Inference
PopQA
NQ
Ranked
Shuffle
Ranked
Shuffle
Llama-3-Instruct 8B
65.83
65.68
64.65
63.68
InstructRAG-Gen
66.69
66.33
64.45
61.49
CoRAG-Gen
71.26
71.05
72.46
72.10
Appendix
Table 8: Performance comparison under shuffled vs. ranked document order on PopQA and NQ datasets
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) significantly enhances Large Language Models (LLMs) by providing access to external knowledge. However, current research primarily focuses on retrieval quality, often overlooking the critical ''integration bottleneck'': even when relevant documents are retrieved, LLMs frequently fail to utilize them effectively due to conflicts with their internal parametric knowledge. In this paper, we argue that implicitly resolving this conflict in a single generation pass is suboptimal. We introduce GuarantRAG, a framework that explicitly decouples reasoning from evidence integration. First, we generate an ''Inner-Answer'' based solely on parametric knowledge to capture the model's reasoning flow. Second, to guarantee faithful evidence extraction, we generate a ''Refer-Answer'' using a novel Contrastive DPO objective. This objective treats the parametric Inner-Answer as a negative constraint and the retrieved documents as positive ground truth, forcing the model to suppress internal hallucinations in favor of external evidence during this phase. Finally, rather than naive concatenation or using the DPO trained model directly, we propose a joint decoding mechanism that dynamically fuses the logical coherence of the Inner-Answer with the factual precision of the Refer-Answer at the token level. Experiments on five QA benchmarks demonstrate that GuarantRAG improves accuracy by up to 12.1% and reduces hallucinations by 16.3% compared to standard and dynamic RAG baselines.
Zhengyi Zhao, Shubo Zhang, Zezhong Wang +7
The Chinese University of Hong Kong · Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of High Confidence Software Technologies, CUHK · University of International Relations +2
Standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems predominantly rely on semantic relevance as a proxy for utility. However, this assumption collapses in realistic decision-making scenarios where user queries are laden with cognitive biases, such as false premises or confirmation bias. In such cases, maximizing relevance paradoxically promotes the retrieval of sycophantic evidence that reinforces hallucinations, a critical failure we term the ``Relevance-Robustness Gap''. To bridge this gap, we propose CoRM-RAG (Counterfactual Risk Minimization for RAG), a framework that aligns retrieval with decision safety rather than mere similarity. Grounded in causal intervention, we introduce a Cognitive Perturbation Protocol to simulate user biases during training, which is then distilled into a lightweight Evidence Critic. This scoring module learns to identify documents that possess sufficient evidential strength to steer the model toward correctness despite adversarial query perturbations. Extensive experiments on decision-making benchmarks demonstrate that CoRM-RAG significantly outperforms strong dense retrievers and LLM-based rerankers in adversarial settings, while enabling effective risk-aware abstention through reliable robustness scoring. Our code is available at https://github.com/PeiYangLiu/CoRM-RAG.git.
Peiyang Liu, Qiang Yan, Ziqiang Cui +3
National Engineering Research Center for Software Engineering, Peking University Beijing, China · PX Securities Shenzhen, China · City University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR, China +2
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become a standard approach for enhancing large language models (LLMs) with external knowledge, mitigating hallucinations, and improving factuality. However, existing systems rely on generating natural language queries at each hop and maintaining a strict architectural separation between retriever and generator, preventing them from leveraging the full representational capacity of the LLM. We propose LAnR (Latent Abstraction for RAG), a unified framework in which a single LLM jointly performs encoding, retrieval, and generation entirely within its own latent space. Rather than generating textual queries, LAnR produces dense retrieval vectors from the hidden states of a designated [PRED] token and uses them to match against encoded document representations from the same model. Furthermore, LAnR adaptively decides when sufficient evidence has been retrieved using a lightweight MLP control head over those same hidden states, eliminating both the separate retriever and explicit token-level stopping reasoning. This design is motivated by our empirical observation that answer token entropy reliably signals retrieval sufficiency. Extensive experiments on six QA benchmarks spanning single-hop and multi-hop settings demonstrate that LAnR outperforms existing RAG methods, while achieving improved inference efficiency through reduced number of retrieval calls and tighter model integration.