The Bottleneck Is Retrieval, Not Reading: Diagnosing Evidence-Based Generation with RAG for Long Context Question Answering

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds large language models in external sources, but retrieved passages often name the right entities without providing the facts needed to answer. Even when instructed to abstain, 12 generators answer 40.0-99.3% of insufficient-evidence questions. Training generators to abstain ties the decision to model weights, may reward answers recalled from parametric knowledge, and still requires a full generator call. Can sufficiency be judged from the question and evidence alone, before any answer exists? We identify pitfalls in constructing insufficient-evidence tests: removing relevant evidence or pairing evidence with unrelated questions can reveal labels through lexical overlap or evidence position. We build a paired benchmark using substitution, deletion, and question-swap constructions that vary answer support while controlling selected surface features, such as word use. Sufficiency can be judged without generating an answer, but no single signal works across all datasets. We introduce RINSE (Relevance Is Not Sufficient Evidence), which combines three signals: whether every part of the question is covered, whether any passage offers an answer, and whether a small language model reading the passages together judges them sufficient. Across six datasets, RINSE ranks sufficient above insufficient evidence with a score of 0.837 (chance 0.5), exceeding the best of 10 prior methods (0.746) and a frontier model queried through an API (0.784). Its weakest dataset scores higher than any other method's weakest (0.684 vs. 0.676). RINSE runs locally before generation, taking 36.5 ms per question on a single GPU.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is a framework in which a Generator, such as a Large Language Model (LLM), produces answers by retrieving documents from an external collection using a Retriever. In practice, Generators must integrate evidence from long contexts, perform multi-step reasoning, interpret tables, and abstain when evidence is missing. However, existing benchmarks for Generators provide limited coverage, with none enabling simultaneous evaluation of multiple capabilities under unified conditions. To bridge the gap between existing evaluations and practical use, we introduce LIT-RAGBench (the Logic, Integration, Table, Reasoning, and Abstention RAG Generator Benchmark), which defines five categories: Integration, Reasoning, Logic, Table, and Abstention, each further divided into practical evaluation aspects. LIT-RAGBench systematically covers patterns combining multiple aspects across categories. By using fictional entities and scenarios, LIT-RAGBench evaluates answers grounded in the provided external documents. The dataset consists of 114 human-constructed Japanese questions and an English version generated by machine translation with human curation. We use LLM-as-a-Judge for scoring and report category-wise and overall accuracy. Across API-based and open-weight models, no model exceeds 90% overall accuracy. By making strengths and weaknesses measurable within each category, LIT-RAGBench serves as a valuable metric for model selection in practical RAG deployments and for building RAG-specialized models. We release LIT-RAGBench, including the dataset and evaluation code, at https://github.com/Koki-Itai/LIT-RAGBench.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to incorporate external knowledge at inference time. However, when retrieved contexts are noisy, incomplete, or heterogeneous, a single generation process often struggles to reconcile evidence effectively. We propose MASS-RAG, a multi-agent synthesis approach to retrieval-augmented generation that structures evidence processing into multiple role-specialized agents. MASS-RAG applies distinct agents for evidence summarization, evidence extraction, and reasoning over retrieved documents, and combines their outputs through a dedicated synthesis stage to produce the final answer. This design exposes multiple intermediate evidence views, allowing the model to compare and integrate complementary information before answer generation. Experiments on four benchmarks show that MASS-RAG consistently improves performance over strong RAG baselines, particularly in settings where relevant evidence is distributed across retrieved contexts.