Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Conflicting Evidence
Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly employing retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to improve the factuality of their responses. However, in practice, these systems often need to handle ambiguous user queries and potentially conflicting information from multiple sources while also suppressing inaccurate information from noisy or irrelevant documents. Prior work has generally studied and addressed these challenges in isolation, considering only one aspect at a time, such as handling ambiguity or robustness to noise and misinformation. We instead consider multiple factors simultaneously, proposing (i) RAMDocs (Retrieval with Ambiguity and Misinformation in Documents), a new dataset that simulates complex and realistic scenarios for conflicting evidence for a user query, including ambiguity, misinformation, and noise; and (ii) MADAM-RAG, a multi-agent approach in which LLM agents debate over the merits of an answer over multiple rounds, allowing an aggregator to collate responses corresponding to disambiguated entities while discarding misinformation and noise, thereby handling diverse sources of conflict jointly. We demonstrate the effectiveness of MADAM-RAG using both closed and open-source models on AmbigDocs -- which requires presenting all valid answers for ambiguous queries -- improving over strong RAG baselines by up to 11.40% and on FaithEval -- which requires suppressing misinformation -- where we improve by up to 15.80% (absolute) with Llama3.3-70B-Instruct. Furthermore, we find that RAMDocs poses a challenge for existing RAG baselines (Llama3.3-70B-Instruct only obtains 32.60 exact match score). While MADAM-RAG begins to address these conflicting factors, our analysis indicates that a substantial gap remains especially when increasing the level of imbalance in supporting evidence and misinformation.
Code (1)
Tasks
Large Language ModelMisinformationRAGRetrievalRetrieval-augmented GenerationMethods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Resolving Conflicting Evidence in Automated Fact-Checking: A Study on Retrieval-Augmented LLMs
Large Language Models (LLMs) augmented with retrieval mechanisms have demonstrated significant potential in fact-checking tasks by integrating external knowledge. However, their reliability decreases when confronted with…
Fact CheckingRAGRetrievalRetrieval-augmented GenerationBeyond "What to Retrieve": Uncertainty in Retrieval-Augmented Code Generation
Repository-level code generation relies on heterogeneous evidence whose relevance, compatibility, and completeness are inherently uncertain. Similar-code examples, repository context, and project-specific APIs may provid…
Code GenerationArbGraph: Conflict-Aware Evidence Arbitration for Reliable Long-Form Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) remains unreliable in long-form settings, where retrieved evidence is noisy or contradictory, making it difficult for RAG pipelines to maintain factual consistency. Existing approache…
Text GenerationRethinking All Evidence: Enhancing Trustworthy Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Conflict-Driven Summarization
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enhances large language models (LLMs) by integrating their parametric knowledge with external retrieved content. However, knowledge conflicts caused by internal inconsistencies or noi…
When Evidence Conflicts: Uncertainty and Order Effects in Retrieval-Augmented Biomedical Question Answering
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 …
Question Answering