When Does Uncertainty Measure RAG Hallucination Risk?

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) aims to reduce hallucination by grounding answers in retrieved evidence, yet hallucinated answers remain common even when relevant documents are available. Existing evaluations focus on answer-level or passage-level accuracy, offering limited insight into how evidence is used during generation. In this work, we introduce a facet-level diagnostics framework for QA that decomposes each input question into atomic reasoning facets. For each facet, we assess evidence sufficiency and grounding using a structured Facet x Chunk matrix that combines retrieval relevance with natural language inference-based faithfulness scores. To diagnose evidence usage, we analyze three controlled inference modes: Strict RAG, which enforces exclusive reliance on retrieved evidence; Soft RAG, which allows integration of retrieved evidence and parametric knowledge; and LLM-only generation without retrieval. Comparing these modes enables thorough analysis of retrieval-generation misalignment, defined as cases where relevant evidence is retrieved but not correctly integrated during generation. Across medical QA and HotpotQA, we evaluate three open-source and closed-source LLMs (GPT, Gemini, and LLaMA), providing interpretable diagnostics that reveal recurring facet-level failure modes, including evidence absence, evidence misalignment, and prior-driven overrides. Our results demonstrate that hallucinations in RAG systems are driven less by retrieval accuracy and more by how retrieved evidence is integrated during generation, with facet-level analysis exposing systematic evidence override and misalignment patterns that remain hidden under answer-level evaluation.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) reduces but does not eliminate hallucination in large language models. Existing detection methods rely on flat similarity between generated answers and retrieved passages, ignoring structural relationships among evidence pieces and answer claims. We propose Evidence Graph Consistency (EGC), a framework that constructs a local evidence graph per response and computes five structural consistency measures as hallucination indicators. Evaluated on the full question answering split of RAGTruth across six LLMs (5,767 responses), EGC reveals a consistent model-family split: graph consistency features show the expected diagnostic direction for hallucinations in Llama-2 models but exhibit systematic reversal in GPT-4, GPT-3.5, and Mistral-7B. This reversal suggests qualitatively different hallucination patterns across model families and indicates that embedding-based graph consistency cannot serve as a model-independent hallucination detection signal.

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.