Open-Source Reproduction and Explainability Analysis of Corrective Retrieval Augmented Generation

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems combine dense retrievers and language models to ground outputs in external documents. However, the interaction between these components remains opaque, creating challenges for deployment in high-stakes domains. We present RAG-E, an end-to-end explainability framework that quantifies retriever-generator alignment through mathematically grounded attribution methods. Our approach adapts Integrated Gradients for retriever analysis, proposes a Monte Carlo-stabilized Shapley Value approximation for generator attribution, and introduces the Weighted Alignment between Retriever and Generator (WARG) metric to measure how closely the generator's document usage aligns with retriever rankings. Experiments on PopQA, QAMPARI, and TREC CAST datasets reveal substantial misalignment: depending on the model and setting, generators often ignore top-ranked documents and rely on documents ranked as less relevant. We show that WARG captures retriever-generator alignment better than Pearson and Spearman correlations and can serve as an indicator of RAG performance. RAG-E and WARG provide a practical framework for auditing this interaction, enabling more reliable and transparent RAG systems.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) improves knowledge-intensive question answering by incorporating external evidence. However, existing RAG methods still suffer from hallucinations and subtle reasoning errors. Recent studies introduce external critics to refine RAG outputs, yet they often provide coarse-grained and weakly structured feedback, exhibit over-aggressive intervention, and lead to noisy and unreliable refinement, limiting their effectiveness for correction. To tackle these issues, we propose CRITIC-R1, a structured critic framework that formulates and learns RAG critique as an explicit error diagnosis problem using reinforcement learning (RL). Our framework categorizes common RAG errors into multiple diagnostic dimensions, including verdict, error location, reasoning analysis, and fix generation. To learn these capabilities, we design two reward functions: Conservative Judgement Alignment (CJA) first encourages calibrated high-level judgements while mitigating the over-aggressive phenomenon, whereas Diagnostic Quality Alignment (DQA) further improves fine-grained diagnostic feedback through gated rewards. We train the critic model using GRPO-based RL with process-level supervision collected from external LLM teacher models. Experiments across five QA benchmarks show that CRITIC-R1 consistently improves answer quality over strong RAG baselines. Our source code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/critic-r1-FCB0

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are often evaluated using final answer accuracy, even though their failures can originate from preprocessing, retrieval, context packing, or generation. This paper presents a controlled empirical study of RAG sensitivity, robustness, and stability across 56 experimental runs. We evaluate how chunk size, retrieval depth (top k), embedding-based reranking, probabilistic retrieval noise, and repeated seeded runs affect retrieval, context packing, and generation behavior. Using a fixed 500-question QA subset mapped to 20,958 unique corpus contexts, we analyze both final answer metrics and intermediate failure modes. Across these experiments, retrieval-oriented metrics improved under broader retrieval settings, while downstream exact-match and F1 scores often behaved non-monotonically. We also observe preprocessing-induced answer loss under smaller chunk sizes, progressive degradation under retrieval corruption, and higher observed variance in broader retrieval regimes. These findings suggest that RAG evaluation should include sensitivity, robustness, stability, and multi-stage failure analysis rather than relying only on final answer accuracy.