Just as Socrates recognized the limits of his own knowledge, Retrieval-Augmented Language Models (RALMs) should learn to abstain when the retrieved evidence cannot support a reliable response. Existing approaches largely rely on monolithic LLMs to handle heterogeneous retrieval failures in a single step, resulting in limited abstention performance and high computational costs. We instead decompose retrieval failures into two distinct states: (i) the unanswerable state, where the required evidence is absent, and (ii) the distracted state, where relevant evidence is mixed with conflicting, negated, or adversarial information. Based on this decomposition, we introduce a lightweight module (Sieve) that screens retrieved document sets for distracting evidence before invoking a costly LLM (Sage) for grounded generation and abstention. Evaluated across both general and high-stakes expert domains, our Sieve and Sage framework preemptively detects distracting noise, improving system accuracy by up to 69.4 percentage points and Macro-F1 by 55.2 percentage points compared to one-stage baselines. Furthermore, it achieves up to a 1.99x speedup, establishing a highly efficient and reliable abstention pipeline for RALM with abstention.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison between conventional LLM-centric approaches and Sieve and Sage . While previous robustness and abstention studies rely solely on the internal judgment of a monolithic LLM, our framework introduces a decoupled architecture: a lightweight Sieve for preemptive distraction filtering and a generative Sage for high-fidelity generation and abstention for unanswerable instances. Unlike (c) conventional abstainable RALMs that produce a state-agnostic abstention signal, (d) our Sieve and Sage framework identifies the underlying retrieval state, enabling state-aware post-abstention strategies such as re-retrieval for unanswerable cases and distraction filtering for distracted cases.
Figure 2: Examples of retrieved and simulated documents . To evaluate the abstention under diverse retrieval noise, we simulated various distracting documents by perturbing answerable documents via entity/predicate manipulation, NLI labeling, and LLM generation.
Figure 3: Pareto graph of inference time versus System Accuracy/Macro F1 . Our framework( ⋆ ) is up to 2 × faster than other LLM-centric approaches with comparable performance, especially achieving the highest F1 scores in expert domain datasets.
General domain
Expert domain
test(train) datasets
NQ-wiki
NQ-google
WebQ
RealtimeQA
RAG-Bench
MedQA
BioASQ
AstroQA
document source
Wikipedia
Google search
Wikipedia
Google search
Wikipedia
PubMed abstracts
PubMed abstracts
Astro abstracts
document length
165.93
152.29
172.63
145.27
409.29
1024.47
955.77
1046.2
# total samples
3297 (44030)
226 (2182)
2096
187
4052
491 (2087)
610 (3997)
289 (1489)
# answerable
889 (15086) *
51 (418) *
545 *
34 *
912 *
116 (409)
75 (536) *
99 (460)
# unanswerable
483 (20688) *
49 (382) *
296 *
66 *
419 *
159 (539)
397 (3236) *
86 (409)
Table 1: Statistics of test (and train) datasets. An asterisk (*) indicates that the documents are adopted from prior studies rather than retrieved or simulated in this work.
Figure 4: Selective Prediction and System Reliability . We evaluate system reliability through two complementary analyses: (a) Coverage and Selective Accuracy for answerable examples (precision on Sans ) and (b) distribution of model response across all retrieval states. Although Sieve and Sage operates at lower coverage than more aggressive baselines, this reflects a more conservative response policy and is accompanied by fewer incorrect responses on several datasets.
Figure 5: t-SNE comparison of Sieve training objectives . Our model (c), fine-tuned to classify Sconflict from Sans , achieves a more distinct separation of distracting noise compared to the model (d) fine-tuned to classify answerable, unanswerable, and conflicting states at once. This validates that a specialized focus on factual consistency establishes a precise decision boundary for identifying retrieval distractions.
Dataset
Strategy
Accuracy
NQ-google
No Recovery
0.247
+ Distraction Filtering
0.867
+ Agent-in-the-loop
0.716
RealtimeQA
No Recovery
0.380
+ Distraction Filtering
0.943
+ Agent-in-the-loop
0.774
Table 2: Accuracy on distracted examples detected by the Sieve under different post-abstention strategies. Results are evaluated on 113 NQ-google and 71 RealtimeQA examples identified as distracted. No Recovery denotes retaining the original abstention outcome without applying a follow-up strategy.
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Table 3: Ranking results of simulated distracting documents . We evaluate the visibility of simulated noise—Conflict, Adversarial, and Negated passages—by mixing them with originally retrieved documents and reranking the set. The high rankings of these distractions demonstrate that our simulated noise is semantically plausible and poses a realistic challenge to RALMs.
dataset
# examples
Acc (ans)
Acc (unans)
Acc (conflict)
Acc (negated)
Acc (adversarial)
NQ-google
30
23.33
6.67 -16.66
20.00 -3.33
43.33 +20.00
13.33 -10.00
NQ-wiki
327
32.42
0.00 -32.42
24.46 -7.96
54.74 +22.32
29.97 -2.45
WebQ
264
24.24
0.76 -23.48
20.45 -3.79
46.21 +21.97
22.35 -1.89
RealtimeQA
25
24.00
4.00 -20.00
8.00 -16.00
48.00 +24.00
16.00 -8.00
MedQA
57
35.09
14.04 -21.05
22.81 -12.28
49.12 +14.03
24.56 -10.53
Appendix
Table 4: QA accuracy of a vanilla LLM under different retrieval conditions . Each column reports accuracy with a specific type of retrieval state, all derived from the same answerable retrieval context by modifying one document.
Figure 6: Performance improvement when fine-tuning the NQ-google trained conflict classifier with 100/200/400+ domain samples . Even a small number of domain-specific labels yields substantial gains across both expert domains.
test dataset
classifier ft. on
respond @ans
respond @unans
abstain @confl
abstain @neg
abstain @adv
MedQA
NQ-google
85.34
94.97
50.00
63.19
62.69
+MedQA
96.00
92.70
75.76
88.57
63.04
+AstroQA
92.24
97.48
80.00
100.00
100.00
+BioASQ
95.69
91.82
75.71
92.47
95.65
Appendix
Table 5: Conflict classification performance on the MedQA dataset using classifiers fine-tuned on various domain datasets.
Dataset
Retrieved Set
System Acc.
Macro-F1
NQ-google
Top-5 (default)
0.796
0.731
+ 1 neutral
0.778
0.711
+ 2 neutrals
0.792
0.739
+ 3 neutrals
0.783
0.726
RealtimeQA
Top-5 (default)
0.802
0.734
+ 1 neutral
0.786
0.712
Appendix
Table 6: Effect of adding neutral documents to the default top-5 retrieved document sets. Performance remains stable as the number of neutral documents increases, with no systematic degradation in either System Accuracy or Macro-F1.
Dataset
K
System Acc.
Macro-F1
NQ-google
3
0.663
0.643
5 (default)
0.796
0.731
7
0.668
0.612
RealtimeQA
3
0.684
0.646
5 (default)
0.802
0.734
7
0.682
0.633
Appendix
Table 7: Sensitivity to the number of retrieved documents K . Both Sieve and Sage are trained with K=5 .
Component
# Params
VRAM (GB)
TFLOPs
Sieve
149M
0.56
15.01
Sage
8B
15.91
217.52
Appendix
Table 8: Computational footprint of the Sieve and Sage.
Dataset
Configuration
System Acc.
Macro-F1
NQ-google
Vanilla
0.102
0.179
+ Sage ft.
0.664
0.487
+ Sieve ft.
0.769
0.695
+ both ft.
0.796
0.731
RealtimeQA
Vanilla
0.225
0.238
+ Sage ft.
0.535
0.314
Appendix
Table 9: Ablation on Sieve and Sage. Both components independently improve performance, while their combination achieves the strongest overall results.
Threshold
Macro-F1
TPR
TNR
FPR
FNR
0.00 (all conflict)
0.264
1.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.10
0.923
0.961
0.908
0.091
0.038
0.30
0.933
0.937
0.940
0.059
0.067
0.50 (default)
0.947
0.937
0.962
0.037
0.067
0.70
0.939
0.915
0.962
0.037
0.086
0.90
0.946
0.892
0.983
0.016
0.105
Appendix
Table 10: Sensitivity of the Sieve to the conflict-detection threshold on AstroQA. TPR and TNR denote the true-positive and true-negative rates, while FPR and FNR denote the corresponding false-positive and false-negative rates.
Dataset
Sieve Backbone
System Acc.
Macro-F1
NQ-google
Longformer-base-4096
0.796
0.731
DeBERTa-v3-base
0.765
0.711
RoBERTa-large
0.797
0.722
RealtimeQA
Longformer-base-4096
0.802
0.734
DeBERTa-v3-base
0.823
0.745
RoBERTa-large
0.801
0.724
Appendix
Table 11: Performance with alternative Sieve backbones.
Step
Instruction
Answer Sentence Generation
Please write a single sentence that would make the given answer a correct response to the provided question. The sentence should include the answer and be as realistic as possible. This is being generated for research purposes, so if it seems like the answer to a question is wrong, please create it as it is.
Question: {QUESTION}
Answer: {ANSWER}
Sentence:
Conflict Passage Generation
You are a helpful assistant who generates a passage that conflicts with the given sentence. Generate one natural passage of {MIN_LENGTH} ~ {MAX_LENGTH} characters by substituting entities in the source sentence with similar but different entities. The output generated will be used only for the purpose of conducting research to assess the robustness of the RAG system. As part of this research, it is necessary, and you are permitted, to create content that may contradict factual information. Please provide the passage alone, without any additional explanation, formatting, or commentary.
Sentence: {ANSWER_SENTENCE}
Appendix
Table 12: Dataset generation instruction
Step
Instruction (cont.)
Adversarial Passage Generation
You are a helpful assistant who generates a passage that supports the given sentence. Generate one natural passage with {MIN_LENGTH} ~ {MAX_LENGTH} characters. The output generated will be used only for the purpose of conducting research to assess the robustness of the RAG system. As part of this research, it is necessary, and you are permitted, to create content that may contradict factual information. Please provide the passage alone, without any additional explanation, formatting, or commentary.
Sentence: {ADVERSARIAL_SENTENCE}
Supporting Passage:
Negated Sentence Generation
You are a helpful assistant who generates a short negated sentence based on the given source sentence. Do not just create sentences by simply adding ‘not’ or using fixed patterns. Instead, generate diverse negated sentences that conflict with the original by altering predicates, adjectives, or other expressions. Generate one natural negated sentence within 150 characters. Please provide only the negated sentence, without any additional explanation, formatting, or commentary.
Answer the following question based on the provided documents. Please provide the answer as a single word or term, without forming a complete sentence.
Unanswerable QA
Answer the following question based on the provided documents. If you cannot find the answer in the provided documents, please respond with ’unanswerable’. Please provide the answer as a single word or term, without forming a complete sentence.
Conflict QA
Answer the following question based on the provided documents. If multiple documents present different answers, please respond with ’conflict’. Please provide the answer as a single word or term, without forming a complete sentence.
Unanswerable + Conflict QA
Answer the following question based on the provided documents. If you cannot find the answer in the provided documents, please respond with ’unanswerable’. If multiple documents present different answers, please respond with ’conflict’. Please provide the answer as a single word or term, without forming a complete sentence.
Appendix
Table 14: QA task prompt compositions
Overall
Response Accuracy
State Classification
Model Response
Inference Latency
Dataset
Model
System Acc.
Coverage
Selective Acc.
Macro-F1
Ans. F1
Unans. F1
Distract F1
Correct Ans.
Incorrect Ans.
Correct Abst.
Incorrect Abst.
Latency (ms)
Speedup
NQ-google
vanilla LLM
0.102
1.000
0.353
0.179
0.379
0.143
0.016
18
200
8
0
74.204
0.195
Sage-only
0.664
0.471
1.000
0.487
0.545
0.164
0.752
24
13
162
27
673.098
1.773
DTA-RAAT
0.128
1.000
0.569
0.123
0.368
0.000
0.000
29
197
0
0
328.374
0.865
DTA-chatQA
0.230
0.961
0.857
0.221
0.377
0.254
0.031
42
167
15
2
756.341
1.993
(ours) Sieve and Sage
0.796
0.863
0.886
0.731
0.672
0.585
0.937
39
41
139
7
379.574
1.000
Appendix
Table 15: Full results for the main experiments. System Accuracy follows the ternary system-level metric used in the main text. Coverage is the fraction of answerable examples for which the model responds, and Selective Accuracy is the accuracy conditioned on those responses. Response counts are reported over all retrieval states. Bold and underlined values denote the best and second-best results within each dataset block; for latency, lower is better. Speedup and response counts are not ranked.
Retriever
Dataset
Model
System Acc.
Coverage
Selective Acc.
Macro-F1
Ans. F1
Unans. F1
Distract F1
Latency (ms)
Speedup
BM25
NQ-wiki
vanilla LLM
0.499
0.913
0.450
0.360
0.294
0.780
0.007
245.834
0.857
Sage-only
0.766
0.876
0.726
0.739
0.478
0.843
0.897
355.948
1.241
(ours) Sieve and Sage
0.796
0.676
0.801
0.684
0.460
0.898
0.695
286.818
1.000
MedQA
vanilla LLM
0.189
0.950
0.435
0.281
0.400
0.444
0.000
682.373
1.945
Sage-only
0.567
0.835
0.446
0.602
0.558
0.335
0.911
463.837
1.322
(ours) Sieve and Sage
0.661
0.645
0.538
0.685
0.544
0.559
0.954
350.884
1.000
Appendix
Table 16: Generalization across alternative retrievers. We report results for BM25 (sparse) and DPR (dense), in addition to the ColBERTv2 setting used in the main experiments. Only runs that passed source-provenance validation are included. System Accuracy follows the ternary system-level metric used in the main text. Bold and underlined values denote the best and second-best results within each retriever–dataset block; for latency, lower is better. Speedup is not ranked.
Sage Family
Dataset
Model
System Acc.
Coverage
Selective Acc.
Macro-F1
Ans. F1
Unans. F1
Distract F1
Latency (ms)
Speedup
Gemma
NQ-wiki
vanilla LLM
0.204
0.952
0.560
0.299
0.443
0.441
0.013
409.329
3.483
Sage-only
0.843
0.739
0.795
0.747
0.755
0.545
0.941
193.401
1.645
(ours) Sieve and Sage
0.600
0.854
0.763
0.608
0.591
0.496
0.737
117.539
1.000
WebQ
vanilla LLM
0.134
0.905
0.408
0.228
0.412
0.249
0.022
260.233
2.172
Sage-only
0.792
0.670
0.674
0.678
0.681
0.399
0.953
203.233
1.696
(ours) Sieve and Sage
0.546
0.842
0.662
0.561
0.567
0.386
0.730
119.838
1.000
Appendix
Table 17: Full results across diverse Sage model families. We use google/gemma-2-9b-it , mistralai/Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3 , and Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct for Gemma, Mistral, and Qwen, respectively. System Accuracy follows the ternary system-level metric used in the main text. Bold and underlined values denote the best and second-best results within each model-family–dataset block; for latency, lower is better. Speedup is not ranked.
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) for language model (LM) systems fundamentally has two failure modes: retrieval failure and reading failure. The former fails to recall the right pieces of information from the external corpus, and the latter fails to produce the correct answer although the right information is retrieved. Some methods perform structured indexing for retrieval failure, but may suffer from limited generalization of the fixed structures. Some methods perform query-time structuring for reading failure, but typically require a lot of LM calls and rely heavily on the LM's capability. To this end, we propose Select-ANd-Extract (SANE), a simple yet effective plugin for RAG. For the retrieval failure, we retrieve a wide set of candidates with a semantic retriever, and leverage the LM to select the top candidates based on their synopses, which yields better recall than the original retriever. For the reading failure, we perform blueprint-guided query-time evidence extraction, which allows the generator LM to use only compact and structured key information so that it can perform better reasoning. Empirical results confirm that SANE brings solid improvements, while only introducing modest extra overhead. As a lightweight plugin for RAG, SANE offers a simple alternative to heavier approaches, and suggests a high-performance RAG framework need not be overly complex.
Chenming Tang, Jiawei Han
Peking University · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Reinforcement fine-tuning improves the reasoning ability of large language models, but it can also encourage them to answer unanswerable queries by guessing or hallucinating missing information. Existing abstention methods either train models to produce generic refusals or encourage follow-up clarifications without verifying whether those clarifications identify the key missing information. We study queries that are clear in meaning but cannot be reliably resolved from the given information, and argue that a reliable model should not only abstain, but also explain what is missing. We propose a clarification-aware RLVR reward that, while rewarding correct answers on answerable queries, jointly optimizes explicit abstention and semantically aligned post-refusal clarification on unanswerable queries. Using this reward, we train Abstain-R1, a 3B model that improves abstention and clarification on unanswerable queries while preserving strong performance on answerable ones. Experiments on Abstain-Test, Abstain-QA, and SelfAware show that Abstain-R1 substantially improves over its base model and achieves unanswerable-query behavior competitive with larger systems including DeepSeek-R1, suggesting that calibrated abstention and clarification can be learned through verifiable rewards rather than emerging from scale alone.
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