Facet-Level Tracing of Evidence Uncertainty and Hallucination in RAG

Uncertainty can measure hallucination risk in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), but only when retrieved evidence constrains the answer. When evidence is present, unsupported factual claims become less likely; when retrieval coverage is poor, the model can answer from internal knowledge and assign high probability to unsupported claims. We test this across four instruction-tuned models on HotpotQA and SQuAD. After matching faithful and hallucinated answers within word-count bins, length-only classifiers fall near chance, while perplexity reaches 0.81--0.91 AUROC on targeted unsupported edits. Varying retrieval depth shows why the score changes meaning: detection can weaken with only the top-ranked passage, then recover after adding a second passage. A combined uncertainty and semantic-drift score improves calibration, and measurements remain above chance on RAGTruth QA. Results support a conditional view of uncertainty as a useful measure of RAG hallucination risk.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) reduces but does not eliminate hallucination in large language models. Existing detection methods rely on flat similarity between generated answers and retrieved passages, ignoring structural relationships among evidence pieces and answer claims. We propose Evidence Graph Consistency (EGC), a framework that constructs a local evidence graph per response and computes five structural consistency measures as hallucination indicators. Evaluated on the full question answering split of RAGTruth across six LLMs (5,767 responses), EGC reveals a consistent model-family split: graph consistency features show the expected diagnostic direction for hallucinations in Llama-2 models but exhibit systematic reversal in GPT-4, GPT-3.5, and Mistral-7B. This reversal suggests qualitatively different hallucination patterns across model families and indicates that embedding-based graph consistency cannot serve as a model-independent hallucination detection signal.

Large language models can still hallucinate in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), producing claims that are unsupported by or conflict with the retrieved context. Detecting such errors remains challenging when faithfulness is judged solely against the retrieved context: many existing detectors return holistic answer-level scores, while others target open-domain factuality or fail to provide evidence-grounded diagnostics. We present RT4CHART, a retromorphic testing framework for context-faithfulness assessment. RT4CHART decomposes an answer into independently verifiable claims, performs hierarchical local-to-global verification against the retrieved context, and assigns each claim one of three labels: entailed, contradicted, or baseless. It further maps these claim-level decisions back to specific answer spans and returns explicit context-side evidence, enabling fine-grained auditing rather than opaque scoring. We evaluate RT4CHART on RAGTruth++ (408 samples) and our re-annotated RAGTruth-Enhance (2,675 samples). RT4CHART achieves the best answer-level hallucination-detection F1 score among the evaluated baselines. On RAGTruth++, it attains a precision of 0.845, a recall of 0.718, and an F1 score of 0.776, representing an 83% relative improvement over the strongest baseline. It also achieves a span-level F1 score of 47.5% on RAGTruth-Enhance. Ablation studies show that claim-based local processing drives most of the observed improvement, while global verification provides selective benefits across datasets. Finally, our re-annotation identifies 1.68X more hallucination cases than the original labels, suggesting that commonly used benchmarks substantially underestimate the prevalence of hallucination.