Does RAG Know When Retrieval Is Wrong? Diagnosing Context Compliance under Knowledge Conflict
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.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
When Confidence Takes the Wrong Path: Diagnosing Retrieval-State Lock-In in RAG
The trustworthiness of a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system depends on more than the answer it returns, yet many black-box uncertainty methods still read agreement among sampled answers as confidence. That infer…
ClashEval: Quantifying the tug-of-war between an LLM's internal prior and external evidence
Retrieval augmented generation (RAG) is frequently used to mitigate hallucinations and provide up-to-date knowledge for large language models (LLMs). However, given that document retrieval is an imprecise task and someti…
Question AnsweringRAGRetrievalRetrieval-augmented GenerationWhen Failures Propagate: Causal Failure Attribution in Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Agentic retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) interleaves retrieval, reasoning, and answer generation across multiple hops. A retrieval error at hop 1 can surface only as a wrong answer at hop 3, while later retrieval can…
Answer GenerationWhen Does Explicit View Routing Work? A Controlled Study of Multi-View Graph-Text Alignment
Graph-text retrieval typically maps a graph and its description to a single embedding, even when a query concerns only one semantic aspect, such as a class label or molecular property. Multiple heads can separate these a…
Text RetrievalDiagnosing Memorization in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning, One Token at a Time
Large Language Models (LLMs) perform well on reasoning benchmarks but often fail when inputs alter slightly, raising concerns about the extent to which their success relies on memorization. This issue is especially acute…