RAG Evaluation

In modern RAG pipelines, query augmentation methods such as HyDE and query expansion are applied to every query, resulting in substantial LLM inference costs and increased end-to-end latency. The empirical justification for this overhead in real production traffic remains largely unexplored. We present a case study of the Danish National Encyclopedia, evaluating five retrieval workflows over 20,000 query-workflow pairs from production traffic and synthetic conditions. In this system, synthetic queries suggest that LLM augmentation is needed for over 90% of queries to achieve high retrieval coverage. However, under our production deferral policy, only 27.8% of real user queries need LLM augmentation. We call this gap the Coverage Illusion and attribute it to a structural mismatch between synthetic and real query distributions. Pre-retrieval routing cannot resolve this gap, as the need for LLM augmentation is only revealed after searching the index, a result confirmed by our evaluation of four machine learning paradigms. The coverage gap, undetectable from the query alone, motivates a post-retrieval cascade that runs workflows in cheapest-first order and escalates to LLM augmentation only when a step returns no documents. Operating entirely without training overhead or secondary serving infrastructure, the cascade improves quality by +0.140 Composite Overall points over Always-HyDE, reduces latency by 31.8%, and serves 72.2% of real user queries without LLM augmentation.

Retrieval-augmented LLMs are deployed for tasks where evidence quality determines action safety, yet evaluation protocols assume that single-turn robustness predicts robustness when evidence accumulates across turns. We show this assumption is fundamentally incorrect. Models exhibit a monitoring-control gap: they readily acknowledge contradictory evidence, yet this awareness fails to constrain their final recommendations - detecting epistemic conflict does not imply resolving it safely. Through a multi-turn document accumulation protocol across four model families (1.5B-32B parameters) and over 50,000 turn-level evaluations, we demonstrate that single-turn diagnostics systematically overestimate RAG safety, that contradiction acknowledgement is uncorrelated with safe resolution, a pattern corroborated by targeted human validation, and that no universal prompt fix exists. Converging mechanism evidence - hidden-state probing, attention analysis, and response-strategy taxonomy - points to action selection as the most plausible locus of the deficit: danger-relevant information is internally represented and receives enhanced attention during unsafe generation, yet fails to constrain output behavior. The gap between what models recognize and what they do must be measured and closed before retrieval-augmented systems can be trusted in high-stakes settings.

Retrieval-augmented generation promises to ground language model outputs in external evidence, yet the field has no reliable way to verify whether retrieved context actually governs generation -- a prerequisite for any high-stakes deployment. The standard assumption, that context-consistent output implies context-governed output, breaks when the retrieved document overlaps with the model's pretraining data: the model can produce faithful-looking text entirely from parametric memory, and both pathways yield indistinguishable output. We name this failure the attribution blind spot and introduce Computational Reality Monitoring (CRM) to address it. CRM operationalizes a principle adapted from cognitive science's reality monitoring framework: comparing internal representations with and without context reveals membership-conditioned representational divergence that output-level monitors systematically miss. CRM does not certify which source an individual generation used; it detects whether pretraining exposure leaves a measurable internal trajectory signature, establishing a necessary substrate for source attribution. Across nine model variants spanning three families, this divergence concentrates in architecture-specific layer patterns, receives converging support from block-level noise intervention, and generalizes across tasks and datasets while collapsing on domain-confounded benchmarks. The attribution blind spot is measurable and partially addressable: internal representations carry a diagnostic signal invisible at the output level, establishing a foundation for systems whose internal awareness of evidence provenance governs their external behavior.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become critical for knowledge-intensive applications, yet evaluating its performance in vertical domains remains difficult due to domain complexity, diverse context scales, and heavy reliance on expert assessments that are costly, inconsistent, and non-scalable. We introduce FAB-Bench, an end-to-end framework for adaptive benchmarking of RAG systems in semiconductor manufacturing. FAB-Bench defines six diagnostic metrics measuring factual accuracy, contextual utilization, completeness, retrieval relevance, technical depth, and reasoning consistency. The framework couples retriever diagnostics with generator-level reasoning analysis across context windows of 4K-32K tokens, quantifying how retrieval precision and generative fidelity co-evolve as contextual scope expands. From over 1,300 generated candidates, we curated a high-quality benchmark of 200 query-answer pairs spanning three synthesis strategies: needle-in-haystack, intra-document multi-topic, and cross-document multi-hop. Systematic evaluation across four LLMs and four RAG frameworks reveals three distinct context-scaling behaviors: logarithmic growth, early saturation, and cold-start dynamics, and identifies attention dilution as the primary mechanism behind performance degradation at extreme context lengths. Cross-framework validation on three additional production RAG systems confirms evaluation portability.

Evidence construction--the stage that determines which passages reach the language model before generation begins--is evaluated paradigm by paradigm, leaving practitioners with no principled way to diagnose which organization strategy fails, where, or why. We introduce AuthTrace, a diagnostic benchmark built on thematically dense single-author corpora where near-miss distractors share style, topic, and vocabulary with the required evidence. AuthTrace provides explicit quoted evidence, exact fan-in annotation, and a unified pack-level protocol measuring evidence recall, evidence precision, and answer correctness. A fan-in gradient--the number of source documents required to support the answer--serves as the primary diagnostic axis, enabling controlled comparison across retrieval, memory, graph, and structured-evidence paradigms. Evaluating eight systems across two QA models, we find that evidence recall is the strongest observed predictor of answer correctness under the primary reader-judge pair (r = 0.96); most failures stem from missing evidence rather than answer synthesis. Fan-in further exposes paradigm-specific collapse patterns: flat retrieval degrades 2-3x faster than thematically organized evidence construction. These results show fan-in decomposition to be a reusable diagnostic lens for identifying where evidence-construction systems fail and which paradigm best serves a given workload.

Deploying Large Language Model (LLM) applications, particularly those relying on Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), remains challenging due to high computational demands, outdated knowledge bases, and the need to manually select optimal pipeline components. In this work, we propose a modular framework for benchmarking and guiding the efficient development of RAG applications by focusing on resource telemetry and component recommendation, suggesting the best components for a domain-specific dataset. Our approach leverages core techniques in LLM applications, including document chunking, vector databases, embedding models, and retrievers, to evaluate trade-offs among accuracy, efficiency, and scalability. By directly correlating retrieval and generation quality with underlying hardware constraints, RAGe supports researchers to identify the most effective, domain-specific RAG setups for their specific operational needs, facilitating rapid prototyping even on consumer-grade hardware.

The rapid expansion of space activities has led to an unprecedented accumulation of technical documentation, operational guidelines, and scientific literature, creating challenges for timely decision-making in space operations. Effective management in space operations requires tools capable of efficiently processing vast and heterogeneous information sources. This paper systematically evaluates the performance of Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) pipelines, combining Large Language Models (LLMs) with information retrieval techniques for extracting and synthesizing actionable knowledge from domain-specific documents. We compare various retrieval strategies, embedding models, and LLM answers to assess their impact on information accuracy, relevance, and reliability. Our results demonstrate that RAG pipelines can significantly enhance knowledge access, reduce uncertainty, and support decision-making in complex space operations.

AI assistants like ChatGPT and Claude are recommendation engines, not search engines: they answer commercial queries by directly nominating brands rather than returning a list of links. Marketing to AI is therefore a broader problem than "show up in search" -- positioning, content, and product fit matter as much as discoverability. We audit ~37,000 production runs across four model configurations and 215 commercially-framed prompts spanning 19 sectors, evaluated against a 533-brand reference catalog stratified into five prominence tiers (L1 category leaders to L5 regional players) sourced from external authority lists. The ladder proxies a brand's awareness footprint within its sector, not revenue or market share. The failure mode differs sharply by tier. L1 brands appear in nearly every relevant retrieval but win only 25-41% of the recommendation slots they reach -- the leverage is differentiation, not visibility. L2 challengers carry the highest conversion rates of any tier (37-52%) but lose to persona-mediated substitution on the Anthropic models. L3 mid-market brands are the inflection level: aggregate coverage drops to 88%, conversion to 34-40%, and persona effects peak. L4 specialists and L5 regional players face catastrophic invisibility -- 48-52% never surface in any of the 37,000 runs. No uniform optimization recipe wins; the right marketing investment depends on where the brand sits on the prominence ladder.

AI chatbots are rapidly shaping how people encounter the news, yet no prior study has systematically measured how accurately these systems, with their proprietary search integrations and retrieval-synthesis pipelines, handle emerging facts across languages and regions. We present a 14-day (February 9-22, 2026) evaluation of six AI chatbots (Gemini 3 Flash and Pro, Grok 4, Claude 4.5 Sonnet, GPT-5 and GPT-4o mini) on 2,100 factual questions derived from same-day BBC News reporting across six regional services (US & Canada, Arabic, Afrique, Hindi, Russian, Turkish). The best systems achieve over 90% multiple-choice accuracy on questions about events reported hours earlier. The same systems, however, lose 11-13% under free-response evaluation, and 16-17% across the cohort. We further characterize three failure patterns. First, every model achieves its lowest accuracy on Hindi (79% vs. 89-91% elsewhere) and citations indicate an Anglophone retrieval bias (e.g., models answering Hindi queries cite English Wikipedia more than any Hindi outlet). Second, retrieval, not reasoning, failures drive over 70% of all errors. When models retrieve a correct source, they often extract the correct answer; the problem is to land on the right source in the first place. Third, models achieving 88-96% accuracy on well-formed questions drop to 19-70% when questions contain subtle false premises, with the most vulnerable model accepting fabricated facts 64% of the time. We also identify a detection-accuracy paradox: the best false-premise detector ranks second in adversarial accuracy (abstention rate), while a weaker detector ranks first, showing that premise detection and answer recovery are partially independent capabilities. Overall, these suggest that high accuracy can mask systematic regional inequity, near-total dependence on retrieval infrastructure, and vulnerability to imperfect queries real users pose.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising paradigm for grounding large language model (LLM) outputs in retrieved evidence, thereby reducing hallucination and improving factual accuracy. Its efficacy, however, remains largely unexamined for low-resource, non-Latin-script languages such as Khmer. In this paper, we present a RAG-based question answering system for Khmer-language telecom-domain documents. We conduct a two-phase comparative evaluation. First, we benchmark three embedding models: BGE-M3 (567M), Jina-Embeddings-v3 (570M), and Qwen3-Embedding (597M), for dense retrieval over Khmer documents. BGE-M3 consistently performs best, achieving a Hit Rate@3 of 0.285, File Hit Rate@3 of 0.700, MRR@3 of 0.221, and Precision@3 of 0.112, substantially outperforming the other retrievers. Second, using BGE-M3 as the selected retriever, we evaluate five generator backends: Qwen3 (8B), Qwen3.5 (9B), Sailor2-8B-Chat, SeaLLMs-v3-7B-Chat, and Llama-SEA-LION-v2-8B-IT, on a curated golden dataset of 200 Khmer question-answer pairs. To quantify system performance, we apply six RAGAS-inspired metrics: faithfulness, answer relevance, context relevance, factual correctness, answer similarity, and answer correctness. The results show no single model dominates across all metrics: Qwen3.5-9B achieves the highest faithfulness (0.859) and context relevance (0.726), Qwen3-8B attains the highest factual correctness (0.380), and SeaLLMs-v3-7B-Chat performs best on answer relevance (0.867), answer similarity (0.836), and answer correctness (0.599). These findings highlight that retriever choice remains a major bottleneck for Khmer RAG, while generator strengths vary depending on whether the priority is grounding, factual precision, or semantic similarity.

Medical RAG systems in high-risk QA settings are often evaluated through a single answer-or-abstain decision, but mixed evidence may support one claim, require conditions for another, and contradict a third. We study claim-selective certification: each response is decomposed into verifiable claims, scored against retrieved evidence, and mapped by an intent-aware selector to {full, partial, conflict, abstain}. On the primary weak-label certificate protocol, whose real-source-only dev/test rows cover the naturally occurring non-abstain actions, the full system records UCCR=0.0000, PAU=1.0000, PAU Precision=0.9901, and action accuracy=0.9204 on dev (n=314), and UCCR=0.0000, PAU=0.9967, PAU Precision=0.9739, and action accuracy=0.8997 on test (n=319). UCCR measures unsupported-claim risk within the certificate definition, and a source-missing counterfactual slice evaluates abstain under empty evidence. Shortcut controls quantify the action-label prior explained by source and intent metadata, while source/evidence-novel slices characterize transfer boundaries. The resulting interface separates action-label prediction from evidence-linked claim selection under mixed evidence.

Across medical specialties, clinical practice is anchored in evidence-based guidelines that codify best studied diagnostic and treatment pathways. These pathways routinely fall short for the long tail of real-world care not covered by guidelines. Most medical large language models (LLMs), however, are trained to encode common, guideline-focused medical knowledge in their parameters. Current evaluations test models primarily on recalling and reasoning with this memorized content, often in multiple-choice settings. Given the fundamental importance of evidence-based reasoning in medicine, it is neither feasible nor reliable to depend on memorization in practice. To address this gap, we introduce OGCaReBench, a free-form retrieval-focused benchmark aimed at evaluating LLMs at answering clinical questions that require going beyond typical guidelines. Extracted from published medical case reports and validated by medical experts, OGCaReBench contains long-form clinical questions requiring free-text answers, providing a systematic framework for assessing open-ended medical reasoning in rare, case-based scenarios. Our experiments reveal that even the best-performing baseline (GPT-5.2) correctly answers only 56% of our benchmark with specialized models only reaching 42%. Augmenting models with retrieved medical articles improves this performance to up to 82% (using GPT-5.2) highlighting the importance of evidence-grounding for real-world medical reasoning tasks. This work thus establishes a foundation for benchmarking and advancing both general-purpose and medical LLMs to produce reliable answers in challenging clinical contexts.

The rapid progress of large language models (LLMs) is shifting semantic search toward a question-answering paradigm, where users ask questions and LLMs generate responses. In high-stake domains such as law, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is commonly used to mitigate hallucinations in generated responses. Nonetheless, prior work shows that RAG systems, whether general-purpose or legal-specific, still hallucinate at varying rates, making fine-grained evaluation essential. Despite the need, existing evaluation frameworks for legal RAG systems lack the granularity required to provide detailed analysis of retrieval and generation performance separately. Moreover, current benchmarks are largely English-only and centered on legal expert queries, overlooking non-expert needs. We introduce ClaimRAG-LAW, a comprehensive dataset for legal RAG that supports French and English, targets both experts and non-experts, and includes diverse question types reflecting realistic scenarios. We further apply a fine-grained evaluation framework of state-of-the-art legal RAG systems, revealing limitations in retrieval, generation, and claim-level analysis in the legal domain.

Accurate evaluation of conversational retrieval is pivotal for advancing Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems. However, existing conversational retrieval benchmarks suffer from costly, sparse human annotation or rigid, unnatural automated heuristics. To address these challenges, we introduce MTR-Suite, a unified framework for auditing, synthesizing, and benchmarking retrieval. It features: (1) MTR-Eval, an LLM-based auditor quantifying alignment gaps in previous benchmarks; (2) MTR-Pipeline, a multi-agent system using greedy traversal clustering to generate high-fidelity dialogues at 1/400th human cost; and (3) MTR-Bench, a rigorous general-domain benchmark. MTR-Bench mimics production-style challenges (hard topic switching, verbosity), offering superior discriminative power. We make our code and data publicly available to facilitate future research at https://github.com/rangehow/mtr-suite.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become foundational for grounding large language models in domain-specific corpora, yet conventional vector-based RAG systems are fundamentally limited in their ability to capture the structured, multi-entity relationships that underpin financial market analysis. This paper presents a comprehensive comparative study of a novel two-hop Graph-RAG architecture versus a standard vector-only baseline for cross-entity financial sentiment analysis. Our system constructs a sentiment-weighted knowledge graph of 59 equity entities from 255 news articles covering 10 major technology stocks, then augments dense retrieval with intensity-filtered graph traversal over INFLUENCES edges to surface relational evidence inaccessible to vector search alone. We evaluate both architectures on 100 grounded queries (30 Direct, 70 Relational) using semantic similarity, entity recall, RAGAS metrics, latency benchmarks, and ablation studies. Graph-RAG achieves a statistically significant improvement in entity recall (+6.4%, p < 0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank) and delivers substantially more relevant answers for complex multi-entity queries (+11.7% Answer Relevancy), with gains concentrating in relational question types (+16.1%). Critically, these improvements come at no measurable cost to answer quality (delta = +0.001 semantic similarity, Cohen's d = 0.078), with a modest 22.6% increase in mean latency offset by an 80% reduction in latency variance. An ablation study on the graph traversal intensity threshold reveals an inverted-U relationship with answer quality, identifying tau = 0.5 as optimal over the production default of tau = 0.7. These findings characterize a precision-for-coverage trade-off inherent to graph-augmented retrieval and provide actionable architectural guidance for practitioners building RAG systems for multi-entity financial analysis.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly applied to engineering design tasks, yet existing evaluation frameworks do not adequately address multi-agent systems that combine simulation, retrieval, and manufacturing preparation. We introduce a benchmark suite with three evaluation dimensions: (1) a workflow benchmark with seven prompt styles targeting distinct cognitive demands-including direct tool use, semantic disambiguation, conditional branching, and working-memory tasks; (2) a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) benchmark with gated scoring isolating retrieval contributions to parameter selection; and (3) an High Performance Computing (HPC) benchmark evaluating end-to-end ML training orchestration on a SLURM cluster. Alongside the benchmark we present EngiAI, a Multi-Agent System (MAS) reference implementation built on LangGraph that operationalizes the benchmark by coordinating seven specialized agents through a supervisor architecture, unifying topology optimization, document retrieval, HPC job orchestration, and 3D printer control. Across four LLM backends and two EngiBench problems, proprietary models achieve 96-97% average task completion on Beams2D, while open-source 4B-parameter models reach 55-78%, with clear generational improvement. Conditional branching proves most challenging, with task completion dropping to 20-53% for the conditional style on Photonics2D. RAG gating confirms near-perfect retrieval-augmented scores (about 1.0) versus near-zero without retrieval, validating the evaluation design. On HPC orchestration, one model completes all pipeline steps in 100% of runs while another drops to 50%, revealing that multi-step instruction following degrades over long-running workflows.

We preregistered a comparison of two ways to help an LLM answer questions over a small research corpus: a single-round Vector RAG system and an LLM-compiled markdown wiki. Both systems answered the same 13 questions over 24 papers using the same answer-generating model, and their answers were scored by blinded LLM judges. The wiki scored much better at connecting findings across papers, but its advantage in answer organization was not strong after judge adjustment. RAG met the preregistered test for single-fact lookup questions. The clean query-side cost result went against the expected wiki advantage: under the tested setup, the wiki used far more query tokens than RAG, so it could not recover any upfront build cost through cheaper queries. Two exploratory analyses changed how we interpret the result. First, claim-level citation checking favored the wiki: its cited pages more often supported the exact claims being made, even though RAG scored better on the overall groundedness rubric. Second, a decomposition-based RAG variant recovered most of the wiki's advantage on cross-paper synthesis at lower LLM-token cost, but it did not recover the wiki advantage in claim-by-claim citation support. The main conclusion is that grounded research synthesis is not a single capability. Systems can differ in how well they organize evidence, how well their citations support each claim, and how much they cost to run. In this study, no architecture was best on all three.

Retrieval-augmented generation from videos requires systems to retrieve relevant audiovisual evidence from large corpora and synthesize it into coherent, attributed text. Current approaches struggle at both ends: retrieval methods fail on complex, multi-faceted queries that cannot be captured by a single embedding, while generation methods lack the high-level reasoning needed to synthesize across multiple videos and face memory constraints over long, multi-video contexts. We present MARQUIS: a three-stage pipeline that addresses these limitations through (1) query expansion, fusion, and reranking, (2) calibrated structured evidence extraction, and (3) article generation from extracted evidence, optionally controlled by an RLM. On the MAGMaR2026 shared task, we improve retrieval performance from 0.195 to 0.759 (nDCG@10). For article generation, ITER-QA-BASE improves average human score from 3.09 to 3.83 over the CAG baseline, while MARQUIS-RLM achieves a human score of 3.30 and the strongest citation recall among non-QA systems.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems implicitly assume mutual consistency among retrieved documents -- an assumption that frequently fails in practice. We present ConflictRAG, a conflict-aware RAG framework that detects, classifies, and resolves knowledge conflicts prior to answer generation. The framework introduces three contributions: (1) a two-stage conflict detection module combining a lightweight embedding-based MLP classifier with selective LLM refinement, reducing API costs by 62% while maintaining 90.8% detection accuracy; (2) an Entropy-TOPSIS framework for data-driven source credibility assessment, improving selection accuracy by 7.1% over manual heuristics; and (3) a Conflict-Aware RAG Score (CARS) for diagnostic evaluation of conflict-handling capabilities. Experiments on three benchmarks against six baselines demonstrate 88.7% conflict-detection F1 and consistent 5.3--6.1% correctness gains over the strongest conflict-aware baseline, with the pipeline transferring effectively across backbone LLMs.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation can improve factuality by grounding answers in external evidence, but Agentic GraphRAG complicates what it means for citations to be faithful. In these systems, an agent explores a knowledge graph before producing an answer and a small set of citations. We frame citation faithfulness as a trajectory-level problem: final citations should not only support the answer, but also account for the graph traversal, structure, and visited-but-uncited entities that may influence it. Through controlled ablation experiments, we compare the effects of isolating, removing, and masking cited and uncited graph entities. Our results show that cited evidence is often necessary, as removing it substantially changes answers and reduces accuracy. However, citations are not sufficient, because accurate answers can also depend on uncited traversal context and surrounding graph structure. These findings suggest that citation evaluation in Agentic GraphRAG should move beyond source support toward provenance over the broader retrieval trajectory.

Large Language Models (LLMs) augmented with Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) techniques are revolutionizing applications across multiple domains, such as healthcare, finance, and customer service. Despite their potential, evaluating RAG systems remains a complex challenge due to the stochastic nature of generated outputs and the intricate interplay between retrieval and generation components. This paper introduces Deepchecks, a comprehensive framework tailored for evaluating RAG applications. Deepchecks' evaluation framework addresses RAG applications evaluation through a multi-faceted approach, root cause analysis and production monitoring. By ensuring alignment with application-specific requirements, Deepchecks framework provides a robust foundation for assessing reliability, relevance, and user satisfaction in RAG systems.

Context: Retrieval-augmented code generation relies on cross-file repository context, but retrieved snippets may come from obsolete project states. Objectives: We study whether temporally stale repository snippets act as harmless noise or actively induce current-state-incompatible code. Methods: We conduct a controlled diagnostic study on a curated 17-sample set of production-helper signature changes from five Python repositories. For each sample, we compare current-only, stale-only, no-retrieval, and mixed current/stale retrieval conditions under prompts that hide commit freshness and expected current signatures. Results: Under neutralized prompts, stale-only retrieval induces stale helper references on 15/17 Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct samples and 13/17 gpt-4.1-mini samples, corresponding to 88.2 and 76.5 percentage-point increases over current-only retrieval. No retrieval produces zero stale references but only 1/17 passing completions. The two models share 75.0% Jaccard overlap among stale-triggering samples, and mixed conditions show that adding valid current evidence largely rescues stale-only failures. Conclusion: Temporal validity of retrieved repository context is a distinct diagnostic variable for Code RAG robustness: stale context can actively bias models toward obsolete repository state rather than merely removing useful evidence.

The Context-Compliance Regime in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) occurs when retrieved context dominates the final answer even when it conflicts with the model's parametric knowledge. Accuracy alone does not reveal how retrieved context causally shapes answers under such conflict. We introduce Context-Driven Decomposition (CDD), a belief-decomposition probe that operates at inference time and serves as an intervention mechanism for controlled retrieval conflict. Across Epi-Scale stress tests, TruthfulQA misconception injection, and cross-model reruns, CDD exposes three patterns. P1: context compliance is measurable in an upper-bound adversarial setting, where Standard RAG reaches 15.0% accuracy on TruthfulQA misconception injection (N=500). P2: adversarial accuracy gains transfer across model families -- CDD improves accuracy on Gemini-2.5-Flash and on Claude Haiku/Sonnet/Opus -- but rationale-answer causal coupling does not transfer. CDD reaches 64.1% mistake-injection causal sensitivity on Gemini-2.5-Flash, while sensitivities for all three Claude variants fall in the [-3%, +7%] range, suggesting that the Claude-side accuracy gains operate through a mechanism distinct from the explicit conflict-resolution trace. P3: explicit conflict decomposition improves robustness under temporal drift and noisy distractors, with CDD reaching 71.3% on temporal shifts and 69.9% on distractor evidence on the full Epi-Scale adversarial benchmark. These three patterns identify context-compliance as a structural axis along which standard RAG can be probed and intervened on, distinct from retrieval-quality or single-method robustness questions, and motivate releasing Epi-Scale for systematic study across model families and retrieval pipelines.

Biomedical retrieval-augmented large language models (LLMs) often face evidence that is incomplete, misleading, or internally contradictory, yet evaluation usually emphasizes answer accuracy under helpful context rather than reliability under conflict. Using HealthContradict, we evaluate six open-weight LLMs under five controlled evidence conditions: no retrieved context, correct-only context, incorrect-only context, and two mixed conditions containing both correct and contradictory documents in opposite orders. In this conflicting-evidence order contrast, where the same two documents are both present and only their order is reversed, accuracy drops for every model and 11.4%--25.2% of predictions flip. To support abstention in these difficult cases, we also evaluate a conflict-aware abstention score that combines model confidence with a detector of evidence conflict. In the two hardest conditions, this score improves selective accuracy over confidence-only, with mean gains of 7.2--33.4 points in incorrect-only (IC') and 3.6--14.4 points in incorrect-first conflicting (ICC') conditions across 75%, 50%, and 25% coverage. These results show that conflicting biomedical evidence is both an uncertainty and robustness problem and motivate evaluation and abstention methods that explicitly account for evidence disagreement.

Multi-hop question answering (QA) remains a significant challenge in the biomedical domain, requiring systems to integrate information across multiple sources to answer complex questions. To address this problem, the BioCreative IX MedHopQA shared task was designed to benchmark in multi-hop reasoning for large language models (LLMs). We developed a novel dataset of 1,000 challenging QA pairs spanning diseases, genes, and chemicals, with particular emphasis on rare diseases. Each question was constructed to require two-hop reasoning through the integration of information from two distinct Wikipedia pages. The challenge attracted 48 submissions from 13 teams. Systems were evaluated using both surface string comparison and conceptual accuracy (MedCPT score). The results showed a substantial performance gap between baseline LLMs and enhanced systems. The top-ranked submission achieved an 89.30% F1 score on the MedCPT metric and an 87.30% exact match (EM) score, compared with 67.40% and 60.20%, respectively, for the zero-shot baseline. A central finding of the challenge was that retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and related retrieval-based strategies were critical for strong performance. In addition, concept-level evaluation improved answer assessment when correct responses differed in surface form. The MedHopQA dataset is publicly available to support continued progress in this important area. Challenge materials: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/bionlp/medhopqa and benchmark https://www.codabench.org/competitions/7609/

We describe our system for SemEval-2026 Task 8 (MTRAGEval), participating in Task A (Retrieval) across four English-language domains. Our approach employs a three-stage pipeline: (1) query rewriting via a LoRA-fine-tuned Qwen 2.5 7B model that transforms context-dependent follow-up questions into standalone queries, (2) hybrid BM25 and dense retrieval combined through Reciprocal Rank Fusion, and (3) cross-encoder reranking with BGE-reranker-v2-m3. On the official test set, the system achieves nDCG@5 of 0.531, ranking 8th out of 38 participating systems and 10.7% above the organizer baseline. Development comparisons reveal that domain-specific temperature tuning for query generation, where technical domains benefit from deterministic decoding and general domains from controlled randomness, provides consistent gains, while more complex strategies such as domain-aware prompting and multi-query expansion degrade performance.

Hallucination, broadly referring to unfaithful, fabricated, or inconsistent content generated by LLMs, has wide-ranging implications. Therefore, a large body of effort has been devoted to detecting LLM hallucinations, as well as designing benchmark datasets for evaluating these detectors. In this work, we first establish a desiderata of properties for hallucination detection benchmarks (HDBs) to exhibit for effective evaluation. A critical look at existing HDBs through the lens of our desiderata reveals that none of them exhibits all the properties. We identify two largest gaps: (1) RAG-based grounded benchmarks with long context are severely lacking (partly because length impedes human annotation); and (2) Existing benchmarks do not make available realistic label noise for stress-testing detectors although real-world use-cases often grapple with label noise due to human or automated/weak annotation. To close these gaps, we build and open-source a new RAG-based HDB called T RIVIA+ that underwent a rigorous human annotation process. Notably, our benchmark exhibits all desirable properties including (1) T RIVIA+ contains samples with the longest context in the literature; and (2) we design and share four sets of noisy labels with different, both sample-dependent and sampleindependent, noise schemes. Finally, we perform experiments on RAG-based HDBs, including our T RIVIA+, using popular SOTA detectors that reveal new insights: (i) ample room remains for current detectors to reach the performance ceiling on RAG-based HDBs, (ii) the basic LLM-as-a-Judge baseline performs competitively, and (iii) label noise hinders detection performance. We expect that our findings, along with our proposed benchmark 1 , will motivate and foster needed research on hallucination detection for RAG-based tasks.

Reasoning benchmarks measure clinical performance on clean inputs. We evaluate the step before reasoning: retrieval over real EHR notes, where negation, temporality, and family-versus-patient attribution can flip a correct answer to a wrong one. EpiKG carries an assertion label and a temporality tag with every fact in a patient knowledge graph, then routes retrieval by question intent. ClinicalBench is a 400-question test over 43 MIMIC-IV patients across 9 assertion-sensitive categories. A 7-condition ablation tests each piece of EpiKG across six LLMs (Claude Opus 4.6, GPT-OSS 20B, MedGemma 27B, Gemma 4 31B, MedGemma 1.5 4B, Qwen 3.5 35B). Three physicians blindly adjudicated 100 paired items. The author-blind primary endpoint, leave-author-out paired exact McNemar on 50 unanimous-strict items rated by two external physicians, yields +22.0 percentage points (95 percent Newcombe CI [+5.1, +31.5], p=0.0192). The architectural novelty, intent-aware KG-RAG over a Contriever dense-RAG baseline (C2b to C4g_kw on the change-excluded n=362 endpoint), is +8.84 percentage points (paired McNemar p=1.79e-3); +12.43 percentage points under oracle intent. Sensitivities agree directionally: three-rater physician majority +24.0 percentage points (subject to single-author circularity); deterministic keyword reproducibility proxy +39.5 percentage points. Across the six models, the gain shrinks as the LLM-alone baseline rises (beta=-1.123, r=-0.921, p=0.009). With n=6 this looks more like regression to the mean than encoding substituting for model size. Physician adjudication identified 56 percent of auto-generated reference answers as defective, a methodological finding indicating that NLP-pipeline clinical-QA benchmarks require physician adjudication to be usable. ClinicalBench, the frozen evaluator, three-rater adjudication data, and the EpiKG output stack are publicly released.

Document-based question answering (QA) increasingly includes abstract questions that require synthesizing scattered information from long documents or across multiple documents into coherent answers. However, this setting is still poorly supported by existing benchmarks and evaluation methods, which often lack stable abstract references or rely on coarse similarity metrics and unstable head-to-head comparisons. To alleviate this issue, we introduce ASTRA-QA, a benchmark for AbSTRAct Question Answering over documents. ASTRA-QA contains 869 QA instances over academic papers and news documents, covering five abstract question types and three controlled retrieval scopes. Each instance is equipped with explicit evaluation annotations, including answer topic sets, curated unsupported topics, and aligned evidence. Building on these annotations, ASTRA-QA assesses whether answers cover required key points and avoid unsupported content by directly scoring topic coverage and curated unsupported content, enabling scalable evaluation without exhaustive head-to-head comparisons. Experiments with representative Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) methods spanning vanilla, graph-based, and hierarchical retrieval settings show that ASTRA-QA provides reference-grounded diagnostics for coverage, hallucination, and retrieval-scope robustness. Our dataset and code are available at https://xinyangsally.github.io/astra-benchmark.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) improves large language models (LLMs) by incorporating external evidence, but it also introduces knowledge conflicts when retrieved contextual knowledge (CK) and parametric knowledge (PK) disagree or are both unreliable. Existing approaches mainly coordinate which source to use, without explicitly asking whether each answer path is correct. We argue that faithful RAG requires LLM self-awareness, namely the ability to recognize the limits of its own knowledge and reasoning. To ground this problem, we construct a model-specific, ground-truth-aligned knowledge-conflict benchmark by evaluating LLM backbones on PK-only and CK-conditioned answer paths over approximately 69K query-context instances per backbone, drawn from five conflict-QA datasets. We then introduce SABER, a Self-Aware Belief Estimator for RAG that requires no LLM fine-tuning. SABER combines a self-prior with PK-side and CK-side conditional reasoning representations from multi-trace inference, then estimates reliability beliefs with two lightweight predictors to drive a 4-cell decision over trust PK, trust CK, trust either, or abstain. Across four LLM backbones, SABER improves end-to-end accuracy and conflict-specific faithfulness over ten inference-time and fine-tuning baselines, with the largest gains on conflict-heavy datasets. Under abstention, SABER's risk-coverage curve Pareto-dominates every prompt-based abstainer, providing a tunable balance between coverage and answer risk. Our code is available at https://github.com/xizhu1022/SABER.