Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) grounds language models in factual evidence but introduces critical challenges regarding knowledge conflicts between internalized parameters and retrieved information. However, existing reliability methods, typically relying on scalar confidence, fail to explicitly distinguish between epistemic uncertainty and inherent data ambiguity in such hybrid scenarios. In this paper, we propose a new framework called ERA (Evidence-based Reliability Alignment) to enhance abstention behavior in RAG systems by shifting confidence estimation from scalar probabilities to explicit evidence distributions. Our method consists of two main components: (1) Contextual Evidence Quantification, which models internal and external knowledge as independent belief masses via the Dirichlet distribution, and (2) Quantifying Knowledge Conflict, which leverages Dempster-Shafer Theory (DST) to rigorously measure the geometric discordance between information sources. These components are used to disentangle epistemic uncertainty from aleatoric uncertainty and modulate the optimization objective based on detected conflicts. Experiments on standard benchmarks and a curated generalization dataset demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms baselines, optimizing the trade-off between answer coverage and abstention with superior calibration.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Categorization of Knowledge Domains and Response Strategies in RAG Models.
Metric
Formula
Description
Answer Quality
Recall
∣Ians∣∣Sans∩Ians∣
Correct answers over all answerable queries
Precision
∣Sans∣∣Sans∩Ians∣
Correct answers over all attempted answers
F1
2⋅Pre+RecPre⋅Rec
Harmonic mean of Precision and Recall
Retrieval Handling
Denoise Rate
∣Inoise∣∣Sans∩Inoise∣
Accuracy on queries with noisy context
Table 1. Summary of evaluation metrics.
Figure 2. Overview of the ERA . The model consists of three components: (1) Contextual Evidence Quantification, where evidential heads project representations from both RAG and Parametric paths into Dirichlet distributions ( α ); (2) Knowledge Conflict Quantification, which utilizes Dempster-Shafer Theory to fuse beliefs and compute a conflict score κ ; and (3) Uncertainty-Aware Abstention Mechanism, which modulates the optimization objective based on the detected conflict to mitigate hallucinations.
Method
Answer Quality
Retrieval Handling
Abstention Quality
Overall F1
Recall
Prec.
F1
Denoise
Context
Recall
Prec.
F1
Qwen3-8B-Base
Logprob ( t=−2 )
0.308
0.933
0.463
0.303
0.221
0.050
0.564
0.091
0.153
Logprob ( t=−1 )
0.197
0.933
0.325
0.187
0.144
0.689
0.360
0.473
0.385
ICL
0.178
0.130
0.150
0.184
0.142
0.048
0.404
0.085
0.109
Self-Consistency
0.203
0.415
0.273
0.219
0.142
0.777
0.350
0.483
0.349
Table 2. Performance comparison across three QA datasets using Qwen3-8B and Llama3-8B backbones. Metrics are categorized into: Answer Quality , Retrieval Handling , and Abstention Quality . Overall F1 represents the harmonic mean balancing answer generation and abstention.
Figure 3. Generalizability evaluation on the Wiki Event dataset using Qwen3-8B-Base.
Figure 4. Quantitative analysis of uncertainty. This figure compares the proposed Evidential Deep Learning (EDL) model against the Cross-Entropy (CE) baseline across three dimensions: (a) A visualization of prediction probability distributions in conflict situations (KN, UG); (b) A comparison of Expected Calibration Error (ECE) across data types; and (c) An evaluation of model sensitivity via the Jensen-Shannon Divergence (JSD) between consistent and conflicting information.
Figure 5. Performance comparison of ablation studies. The consistent degradation in Overall F1 scores observed when removing or altering individual components validates the distinct contribution of each module in the ERA framework.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6. Generalizability evaluation on the Wiki Event dataset using Llama-3.1-8B.
Figure 7. Generalizability evaluation on the Wiki Event dataset using ChatQA.
Retrieval-augmented generation grounds large language models in external evidence, but most pipelines still treat retrieved passages as deterministic and mutually consistent context. In open information environments, retrieved sources may disagree because of temporal drift, source error, ambiguity, or genuine uncertainty. This paper introduces ERAG, an uncertainty-aware RAG framework that converts retrieved chunks into probabilistic evidence before generation. A lightweight evaluator extracts candidate claims and maps chunk-level support to Dirichlet evidence. A conflict-preserving Dempster-Shafer fusion rule then transfers unresolved disagreement into epistemic uncertainty rather than normalizing it away. The generator is routed to direct answering, conflict-aware answering, or abstention according to the fused uncertainty score. Experiments on CRAG, ConflictQA, and MuSiQue show that ERAG remains competitive with the strongest matched baseline on standard question answering while improving behavior under conflict. On the CRAG ambiguous subset, hallucination decreases from 45.3% for Corrective RAG to a human-calibrated estimate of 34.8%, conflict resolution increases from 35.2% to 51.2%, and expected calibration error improves to 0.122. These results suggest that evidential modeling is a practical mechanism for trustworthy information processing in foundation-model-based retrieval systems.
S M Asif Hossain, Ruksat Khan Shayoni, M. F. Mridha
aSchool of Computing, Wichita State University, Kansas, USA · bDepartment of Computer Science, American International University-Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Current Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems predominantly rely on relevance-based dense retrieval, sequentially fetching documents to maximize semantic similarity with the query. However, in knowledge-intensive and real-world scenarios characterized by conflicting evidence or fundamental query ambiguity, relevance alone is insufficient for resolving epistemic uncertainty. We introduce Entropic Claim Resolution (ECR), a novel inference-time algorithm that reframes RAG reasoning as entropy minimization over competing semantic answer hypotheses. Unlike action-driven agentic frameworks (e.g., ReAct) or fixed-pipeline RAG architectures, ECR sequentially selects atomic evidence claims by maximizing Expected Entropy Reduction (EER), a decision-theoretic criterion for the value of information. The process dynamically terminates when the system reaches a mathematically defined state of epistemic sufficiency (H <= epsilon, subject to epistemic coherence). We integrate ECR into a production-grade multi-strategy retrieval pipeline (CSGR++) and analyze its theoretical properties. Our framework provides a rigorous foundation for uncertainty-aware evidence selection, shifting the paradigm from retrieving what is most relevant to retrieving what is most discriminative.
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) improves large language models (LLMs) by incorporating external evidence, but it also introduces knowledge conflicts when retrieved contextual knowledge (CK) and parametric knowledge (PK) disagree or are both unreliable. Existing approaches mainly coordinate which source to use, without explicitly asking whether each answer path is correct. We argue that faithful RAG requires LLM self-awareness, namely the ability to recognize the limits of its own knowledge and reasoning. To ground this problem, we construct a model-specific, ground-truth-aligned knowledge-conflict benchmark by evaluating LLM backbones on PK-only and CK-conditioned answer paths over approximately 69K query-context instances per backbone, drawn from five conflict-QA datasets. We then introduce SABER, a Self-Aware Belief Estimator for RAG that requires no LLM fine-tuning. SABER combines a self-prior with PK-side and CK-side conditional reasoning representations from multi-trace inference, then estimates reliability beliefs with two lightweight predictors to drive a 4-cell decision over trust PK, trust CK, trust either, or abstain. Across four LLM backbones, SABER improves end-to-end accuracy and conflict-specific faithfulness over ten inference-time and fine-tuning baselines, with the largest gains on conflict-heavy datasets. Under abstention, SABER's risk-coverage curve Pareto-dominates every prompt-based abstainer, providing a tunable balance between coverage and answer risk. Our code is available at https://github.com/xizhu1022/SABER.
Xi Zhu, Ziqi Wang, Kai Mei +5
Rutgers University · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign