When Reasoning Traces Conflict with Evidence: How Answer Configuration Shapes Evidence Following

Modern multi-hop LLM agents are equipped with built-in mechanisms to detect errors in intermediate reasoning steps. Such errors trigger corrective actions from these agents, which mostly follow the paradigm of retrying the steps or the reasoning trajectories. Not only are these retries expensive, we present in this paper that they are also potentially unnecessary. To this end, we introduce Evidence-Inference Reconstruction (EIR), which uses structured state to guide one retrieval trajectory, accumulating source evidence in the process. We show that as long as the relevant evidence has been collected, EIR is capable of generating the correct answer in a single final model call even if erroneous evidence has been mixed in due to incorrect intermediate reasoning steps. In one evaluation, using Haiku 4.5 and GPT-4.1 Mini, we evaluate EIR on matched 1,000-question subsets of HotpotQA, 2WikiMultiHopQA, and MuSiQue, showing that EIR improves Answer F1, the overlap between the model's and the correct answer, over the baseline by 8.3--32.8 points, Agentic SSR by 10.6--29.1 points, and Reflexion by 1.1--15.9 points. Additionally, we show that EIR averages 4.85 total model calls per question, compared with 35.29 for Agentic SSR and 12.41 for Reflexion. Together, these results corroborate EIR's central premise: separating evidence retrieval from the final answer model call can improve answer accuracy while utilizing substantially less computation.

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.

Retrieval-augmented language models are expected to answer from the retrieved evidence, but in practice they often keep answering when that evidence is missing. We trace this behavior to the training signal: answer-focused fine-tuning assigns no target to unsupported contexts, so it cannot distinguish a reader that abstains from one that guesses, and unsupported answering stays near 100% even as supported accuracy improves. We introduce Regime Boundary Alignment (RBA), which trains a single reader on matched variants of the same question and gold answer. The reader is trained to produce the gold answer when the context supports it, including when conflicting evidence is also present, and to abstain when the correct support is removed; inference is ordinary decoding, with no verifier, threshold, or regime label. On three multi-hop QA datasets across three seeds, RBA reduces the unsupported-answer rate by more than sixty percentage points relative to conflict-focused training while matching its supported accuracy. On a held-out TriviaQA retrieval-miss slice, the same reader reduces unsupported answering from 100% to below 1% while also improving supported accuracy. These results indicate that evidence-gated answering must be learned on both sides of the support boundary.