Organizations: The Chinese University of Hong Kong · Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of High Confidence Software Technologies, CUHK · University of International Relations · Tencent Jarvis Lab · Westlake University
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.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the GuarantRAG framework. (1) Decoupling : We generate an Inner-Answer (reasoning) and a Refer-Answer (evidence). The Refer-Answer is trained via Contrastive DPO to explicitly prefer retrieved docs over parametric priors. (2) Fusion : A Joint Decoding mechanism dynamically merges the reasoning flow of the Inner-Answer with the factual content of the Refer-Answer during inference.
Figure 2: Attention distribution heatmaps for different decomposition granularities.
Figure 3: Performance analysis of GuarantRAG compared to SOLAR and SelfRAG across different (a) query lengths, (b) reasoning complexities, and (c) reference document lengths. Y-axis shows the average performance score across all metrics.
Figure 4: Performance degradation with increasing retrieval noise. x-axis denotes the extra noisy documents added to the model.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Failure Type
Percentage (%)
Information Omission
42.8
Contradictions
24.3
Fact Blending
19.1
Relevance Errors
13.8
Appendix
Table 9: Distribution of knowledge integration failure types across the 67.3% of problematic RAG responses. The percentages represent the proportion of each failure type within the set of integration failures.
Department of Computer Science, Iowa State University · Department of Computer Science, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology · Department of Civil, Construction & Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University