EnterpriseRAG: Benchmarking LLM Instruction Adherence and Robustness under Non-Ideal Enterprise Retrieval

Allowing large language models (LLMs) to retrieve information from a set of trusted documents can increase reliability and reduce hallucination. However, recent work has demonstrated that retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can have unintended side effects on the overall safety of the generated responses, when prompted for harmful or dangerous content. A clearer understanding of the mechanisms leading to this result is needed, as increasing numbers of end users turn to RAG to incorporate corporate documents and knowledge bases into LLM-based systems. We introduce RAG-Safety-Bench, a benchmark to measure the safety impact of RAG on LLM models. By removing the confounding effect of retriever quality, and cleanly separating the problem into four conditions -- non-RAG, RAG with an oracle document containing the answer to the harmful request, RAG with documents related to the harmful request but without the specific answer, and RAG with random, safe documents -- the benchmark isolates the impacts of different factors in the observed safety degradation. We report results across five open-source LLMs, showing an inverse relationship between benign and unsafe capability, strong evidence that baseline safety guardrails do not lead to downstream safety guarantees in the RAG case, and model-specific support for previous findings that even benign documents can lead to unsafe generation in retrieval-enabled systems.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enables Large Language Models (LLMs) to use external and domain-specific knowledge, but its reliability depends on the interaction between the generative model, embedding model, retrieval mechanism, and prompt construction strategy. We present RagTester, an automated end-to-end testing approach for RAG systems. RagTester generates retrieval documents, test inputs, and expected outputs; executes the tests; and evaluates the resulting answers using an LLM as a judge. Its test-generation strategy targets complex passages, unsupported queries, and document-coverage criteria. We evaluate RagTester using eight LLMs and six embedding models, yielding 24 compatible configurations, and compare it with a baseline test-input generator. Across 72,000 test executions, RagTester detected 21,633 failures, 6.6% more than the baseline, and outperformed it in 20 of the 24 configurations. The detected failures include inaccurate retrieval, unsupported answers, incomplete use of retrieved context, and difficulties interpreting complex passages. These results show that coverage-oriented test generation can effectively expose failures caused by the interaction between retrieval and generation components and support the assessment of RAG configurations before deployment.

Agentic retrieval-augmented generation systems can produce answers that appear grounded while failing at the evidence, tool-contract, authorization, or session-state layer. We introduce LayerRAG-Bench, a controlled cross-layer reliability benchmark with 8 enterprise domains, 240 tasks, 9 fault scenarios, 2 contract modes, and 38,880 live task-level records across nine models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Gemini. Schema normalization raises schema-drift success from 0.000 to 0.913, but stale evidence, missing tool output, denied permissions, and wrong-session context are not recovered by schema normalization. Groundedness-only evaluation also produces substantial false positives under stale and wrong-session evidence. These results support a layer-specific evaluation principle: a reliability intervention should be credited for repairing its target layer without being mistaken for a universal fix.