Trust or Abstain? A Self-Aware RAG Approach

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become the standard way to ground large language models in external knowledge, yet most systems retrieve a fixed number of passages for every question regardless of its difficulty. This wastes computation on easy questions, starves hard ones, and gives no signal for when a generated answer can be trusted. With a growing share of question answering systems built on top of commercial language model APIs, a method that can decide how much to retrieve, and how far to trust its own answers, without retraining the underlying model, is of clear practical value. This paper presents AB-RAG (Adaptive Budgeted Retrieval-Augmented Generation), a training-free and backbone-agnostic framework that generates an answer, estimates its confidence from a combination of three signals, and then decides whether to stop or to retrieve more evidence, subject to a fixed retrieval budget. The estimator combines the model's own certainty, the agreement between the answer and the evidence, and the variance of the retrieval scores. For models that expose token probabilities the certainty signal is read directly; for closed APIs it is approximated by self-consistency, so the method works without access to model internals. Across three backbones and two datasets, the central result is that the confidence estimate reliably separates correct from incorrect answers on every backbone, reaching a clean split of 57.6% against 0% Exact Match between high- and low-confidence answers on a factoid dataset. The adaptive policy improves accuracy on capable backbones, and the study reports its negative and nuanced findings honestly, including a confidence signal that proved unsuitable for short answers and a retrieval signal whose sign was found and corrected through measurement. The entire study was carried out on a single consumer laptop with only a few dollars of API spend.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems implicitly assume mutual consistency among retrieved documents -- an assumption that frequently fails in practice. We present ConflictRAG, a conflict-aware RAG framework that detects, classifies, and resolves knowledge conflicts prior to answer generation. The framework introduces three contributions: (1) a two-stage conflict detection module combining a lightweight embedding-based MLP classifier with selective LLM refinement, reducing API costs by 62% while maintaining 90.8% detection accuracy; (2) an Entropy-TOPSIS framework for data-driven source credibility assessment, improving selection accuracy by 7.1% over manual heuristics; and (3) a Conflict-Aware RAG Score (CARS) for diagnostic evaluation of conflict-handling capabilities. Experiments on three benchmarks against six baselines demonstrate 88.7% conflict-detection F1 and consistent 5.3--6.1% correctness gains over the strongest conflict-aware baseline, with the pipeline transferring effectively across backbone LLMs.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) improves the factuality of large language models with external knowledge, yet conflicting evidence remains a fundamental challenge in dynamic and adversarial environments. Existing approaches often treat conflicts as static inconsistencies and select more reliable knowledge, overlooking that the same conflict may arise from legitimate knowledge evolution, malicious manipulation, or unresolved uncertainty. We formulate conflict origin attribution as a new problem in RAG: identifying which explanation of conflicting evidence is supported by observable context rather than simply which fact should be trusted. We propose EvoTrustRAG, a training-free framework for evolution-aware conflict attribution and evidence handling before answer generation. EvoTrustRAG represents span-grounded retrieved facts as a conflict evidence graph, evaluates grounded evolution and directional intervention hypotheses using temporal relations, support structure, and auxiliary consistency, and projects local decisions onto a globally consistent explanation of each conflict group. The attribution determines whether earlier and later states are preserved as temporal knowledge, an intervention candidate is separated from the primary context, or an unresolved conflict remains visible to the generator. Unlike provenance-based approaches focused on post-hoc analysis, EvoTrustRAG determines during inference whether conflicting evidence follows plausible knowledge evolution, exhibits intervention-like support, or cannot be reliably attributed. Experiments show that EvoTrustRAG achieves 81.4% average accuracy on benchmark-native conflict settings, improves attribution macro-F1 from 72.2% to 79.1% over the strongest baseline, and reduces the error rate under the strongest coordinated attack from 31.2% to 16.0%.