Retrieved but Not Read: Understanding Why Search-Augmented LLMs Fail to Use Available Evidence

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is often used to address outdated knowledge by providing external evidence. But retrieval helps only when that evidence is still valid. We identify a temporal alignment failure, stale-document poisoning, in which outdated evidence makes a model wrong despite answering correctly without retrieval. We construct a benchmark of 317 verified knowledge reversals across medicine, law, software, and platform policy, grounded in dated official sources. Across 12 models, recent medical reversals are harder than long-established ones. More importantly, outdated retrieval flips 30% of Llama and 37% of Qwen answers even without instructions to trust the document; explicit follow instructions raise these rates to 66% and 75%. Across four open models and four domains, poisoning ranges from 17-91%, while matched up-to-date evidence is followed in 97-100% of trials. To isolate temporal applicability, we keep the historical evidence unchanged across 50 reversals and vary only the evaluation date. A clear pattern emerges: dates alone produce only modest adaptation, but when models are explicitly told when the old evidence stops applying, the larger models switch to the appropriate answer almost perfectly. Causal interventions confirm that this validity information directly shapes the final decision. The same internal components also support broader comparison tasks, suggesting that temporal applicability can recruit a general reasoning mechanism used for other comparisons. Finally, a fixed recency-aware hybrid re-ranker reduces poisoning by 4.6-10.0 points when dates are accurate, with gains that depend on reliable temporal metadata. Reliable RAG therefore requires selective trust: models must determine not only what retrieved evidence says, but whether it still applies.

Users of search-augmented LLMs rely on citations as evidence that responses are grounded in real sources, and rarely verify the cited pages themselves. Millions of queries per day now pass through these systems, making citation quality a silent determinant of whether users are informed or misled-yet existing benchmarks each address one facet in isolation, leaving the joint structure that determines citation trustworthiness unmeasured. We construct CITETRACE, a large-scale dataset that traces the full citation chain from user query through retrieved source to generated answer: 11,200 real-world queries from 28 communities paired with 112,000 responses from ten models across five providers, yielding 761,495 evaluable citation pairs. We design a three-dimension evaluation framework that scores each citation on intent-purpose alignment, source suitability, and answer-source fidelity, using expert-validated predefined matrices and a five-level fidelity rubric; the framework applies to any system that produces citation-bearing responses. Applying this framework at scale, we identify a systematic pattern we call VERIFIED MISGUIDANCE (VM): models cite real, accessible sources yet fail along one or more dimensions, producing a fidelity-suitability trade-off in which faithful models select inappropriate sources and vice versa. Across our pool, 30.6% of citations distort their sources and 27.1% originate from domain-inappropriate sources; at the response level, up to 96% of users encounter at least one structurally misleading citation. Provider-level differences explain 88-96% of citation-quality variance, suggesting that source selection is governed more by factors beyond individual model capability than by the LLMs themselves. Together, CITETRACE and its evaluation framework provide the first resource for diagnosing structural citation failures in deployed search-augmented systems.

As the world changes, new information is published while older records remain online. This complicates reasoning for large language models (LLMs), which must retrieve evidence and resolve conflicts to determine which information remains valid. Existing evaluations treat information seeking as a black box, revealing little about where and why LLMs fail. To address this gap, we introduce TREK, a suite of three components: TREKTRACE is a plug-and-play framework that attributes failures to specific stages of retrieval and reasoning. We apply it to TREKBENCH-WILD, a meta-benchmark of real-world questions that require complex reasoning over rapidly evolving knowledge. Surprisingly, the main bottleneck is post-retrieval reasoning rather than retrieval: frontier models are often misled by conflicting evidence even after retrieving all the information needed to answer. To study this bottleneck, we build TREKBENCH-CTRL, a controlled benchmark with distractors spanning temporality, relevance, and trustworthiness, and show that benchmarks dominated by outdated distractors substantially underestimate task difficulty. Together, TREK provides a testbed for diagnosing and improving reasoning over rapidly evolving knowledge.