Relevance Is Not Sufficient Evidence: Detecting Evidence Gaps Before Generation in RAG

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds answers in retrieved passages, but retrieval is not verification: a passage can be topical and still fail to justify the answer. We frame this gap as evidence sufficiency verification for selective RAG answering: given a question, a candidate answer, and retrieved evidence, predict whether the evidence supports, refutes, or is insufficient, and abstain unless support is established. We present SURE-RAG, a transparent aggregation protocol built on the observation that evidence sufficiency is a set-level property: missing hops and unresolved conflicts cannot be detected by independent passage scoring. A shared pair-level claim-evidence verifier produces local relation distributions, which SURE-RAG aggregates into interpretable answer-level signals -- coverage, relation strength, disagreement, conflict, and retrieval uncertainty -- yielding a three-way decision and an auditable selective score. We evaluate on HotpotQA-RAG v3, a controlled multi-hop benchmark, under an artifact-aware protocol (shortcut baselines, counterfactual swaps, no-oracle checks, GPT-4o audits). Calibrated SURE-RAG reaches 0.9075 Macro-F1 (0.8951 +/- 0.0069), substantially above DeBERTa mean-pooling (0.6516) and a GPT-4o judge (0.7284), while matching a strong but opaque concat cross-encoder (0.8888 +/- 0.0109) with full auditability. Risk at 30% coverage drops from 0.2588 to 0.1642, a 37% reduction in unsafe answers. To deliberately probe the task boundary, we further contrast SURE-RAG with GPT-4o on HaluBench unsafe detection: the ranking reverses (0.3343 vs 0.7389 unsafe-F1), establishing that controlled sufficiency verification and natural hallucination detection are distinct problems.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is the dominant paradigm for grounding large language models in external corpora, but its similarity-driven, chunked pipeline has structural blind spots: it cannot anticipate which passages a question requires and discards document-level context that resolves cross-passage references. We introduce evidence-based generation (EBG), requiring models to return an answer with line-level citations, and a joint Ans+Evid metric that scores correctness and grounding simultaneously. We reformulate two corpora into evidence-grounded multi-document QA benchmarks- MultiHop-RAG and QASPER-MP, a multi-paper adaptation of QASPER with realistic short paper cues, and pair them with a controlled synthetic two-hop haystack and an evidence-augmented NoLiMa spanning 10K-1M characters. Across ten proprietary frontier and three open-weight LLMs, EBG isolates two RAG limitations that long-context models avoid: similarity retrieval surfaces any relevant chunk far more reliably than all required chunks for multi-fact queries, and chunking destroys document meta-information needed to resolve identity-bearing queries. EBG also exposes grounding failures invisible to answer-only evaluation, including incomplete citations in two-needle settings and a widening gap between Ans and Ans+Evid when context contradicts parametric knowledge. Data and code are available at https://github.com/debobanerjee/LC-EBG.

Following retrieved evidence does not guarantee factual correctness: misleading evidence can induce a model to replace an answer it previously gave correctly. Standard accuracy measures obscure this behavior by combining answer replacement with preexisting errors. We introduce RAG-Stress, a controlled diagnostic protocol for examining the limits of evidence reliance in retrieval-augmented generation. The protocol holds the question and reference answer fixed, edits one assertion to support a designated incorrect answer, and crosses two source priority policies with three positions of the answer span within the evidence text. We measure misleading rate (MR) on each model's subset of questions answered correctly without retrieval, alongside clean accuracy on the full evaluation set. We evaluate fifteen systems spanning API models, open models, and search agents trained with reinforcement learning on TriviaQA-RC, HotpotQA, and SearchQA, with additional English and Chinese MedQA evaluations. Instructions that prioritize documents consistently produce higher MR than those permitting reliance on prior knowledge. Averaged over models and positions, the gap ranges from 10.9 to 13.5 percentage points across the three QA datasets. Mean MR follows End $>$ Beginning $>$ Middle under both policies, although individual models do not uniformly follow this ordering. A separate paired audit of 500 questions and two checkpoints supports increased harmful override without establishing a corresponding improvement in beneficial correction. These findings distinguish evidence adherence from factual reliability and motivate evaluating whether retrieved evidence preserves, replaces, or corrects a model's answers.