pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.07783 · v1 · pith:DYAQE4MMnew · submitted 2026-06-05 · 💻 cs.CL

Evaluating RAG Reliability under Clean, Misleading, and Mixed Retrieval

Sevgi Yigit-Sert This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 21:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL
keywords RAGretrieval-augmented generationmisinformationparametric knowledgeevaluation protocolLLM reliabilityfactoid questions
0
0 comments X

The pith

RAG reliability is tested by measuring overrides of correct parametric knowledge when retrieval includes misleading information.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper proposes an evaluation protocol for RAG systems in environments with potential misinformation. It selects factoid questions that the LLM answers correctly without retrieval as a baseline. Then it introduces clean, misleading, and mixed evidence to observe how the system handles conflicts between its internal knowledge and the retrieved context. The protocol uses parametric override and confidence metrics to analyze the effects on generation.

Core claim

The paper establishes an evaluation protocol that targets correct answers to factoid questions without retrieval and tests RAG systems with clean, poisoned, and mixed evidence, using parametric override and confidence metrics to assess the impact of misleading information on LLM generation.

What carries the argument

The analytical framework that combines parametric override and confidence metrics for assessing RAG behavior under varying retrieval conditions.

If this is right

  • Provides a systematic way to evaluate RAG robustness against misinformation.
  • Identifies when misleading evidence affects the generation process.
  • Allows comparison of RAG performance with clean versus poisoned contexts.
  • Offers insights into information disorder scenarios for RAG systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Such protocols could inform the development of more resilient RAG architectures.
  • The approach might extend to evaluating other knowledge-intensive tasks in LLMs.
  • Results could highlight the need for better conflict resolution mechanisms in retrieval systems.

Load-bearing premise

That selecting factoid questions the model already answers correctly without any retrieval creates a valid and unbiased baseline for measuring the impact of misleading evidence.

What would settle it

If applying the protocol shows that the selected questions are not answered correctly consistently without retrieval, or if the metrics do not distinguish between clean and misleading conditions in expected ways.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.07783 by Sevgi Yigit-Sert.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Poison Ratio Curve showing the relationship between the proportion of misleading retrieved context and model accuracy for GPT-4o and LLaMA-3.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is widely used to improve the factual reliability of large language models (LLMs) by grounding answers in retrieved evidence. In misinformation-rich environments, however, retrieved content may include plausible but incorrect information, raising concerns about the reliability of RAG-based information access systems. In this work, we propose an evaluation protocol to systematically test how the RAG system handles conflicts between parametric knowledge and evidence retrieved from context with varying amounts of misleading information. We target correct answers to factoid questions that the model responds to correctly, even when there is no retrieval, and use this to test the system with clean, poisoned, and mixed evidence. The proposed analytical framework combines parametric override and confidence metrics to assess when and how misleading information affects the generation process of LLMs. This study aims to provide insights into the robustness of RAG systems in information disorder scenarios.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an evaluation protocol for Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems to test handling of conflicts between parametric knowledge and retrieved evidence containing varying amounts of misleading information. It selects factoid questions the model answers correctly without retrieval, then evaluates responses under clean, poisoned, and mixed evidence using parametric override and confidence metrics.

Significance. A well-validated protocol of this type could provide a structured way to measure RAG robustness in misinformation scenarios. The dual-metric framework (override plus confidence) is a reasonable starting point for distinguishing when misleading context affects output. No experimental results, datasets, or implementation details are supplied, so the practical utility cannot yet be assessed.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the protocol restricts analysis to 'factoid questions that the model responds to correctly, even when there is no retrieval'. This selection may bias the sample toward high-confidence parametric successes, where misleading evidence is less likely to override, and leaves untested the common regime in which parametric knowledge is weak or absent and retrieval is decisive. The selection criterion is load-bearing for the claim of systematically testing parametric-vs-evidence conflicts.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract refers to 'poisoned' evidence while the title uses 'Misleading'; ensure consistent terminology across the manuscript.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful review of our manuscript proposing an evaluation protocol for RAG reliability. We address the major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the protocol restricts analysis to 'factoid questions that the model responds to correctly, even when there is no retrieval'. This selection may bias the sample toward high-confidence parametric successes, where misleading evidence is less likely to override, and leaves untested the common regime in which parametric knowledge is weak or absent and retrieval is decisive. The selection criterion is load-bearing for the claim of systematically testing parametric-vs-evidence conflicts.

    Authors: The selection of factoid questions where the model answers correctly without retrieval is intentional and central to our framework. Our goal is to evaluate how RAG systems handle conflicts between existing parametric knowledge and potentially misleading retrieved evidence. By focusing on cases with correct parametric responses, we can measure the extent of parametric override when misleading information is introduced in clean, poisoned, or mixed retrieval settings. Cases where parametric knowledge is weak or absent do not involve such conflicts, as the model relies primarily on retrieval; these scenarios fall outside the scope of our study on parametric-evidence conflicts. We will update the abstract and methods section to clarify this rationale and the targeted scope of the evaluation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: proposed evaluation protocol is self-contained methodological contribution

full rationale

The paper proposes an evaluation protocol for testing RAG behavior under clean, poisoned, and mixed retrieval without any mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters, or predictions. The central step of selecting factoid questions answered correctly without retrieval is a deliberate baseline choice, not a self-definitional reduction or fitted input renamed as prediction. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes. The contribution remains an independent methodological framework against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no information on free parameters, axioms, or invented entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5673 in / 921 out tokens · 20042 ms · 2026-06-27T21:48:14.574342+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Y. Zhu, H. Yuan, S. Wang, J. Liu, W. Liu, C. Deng, H. Chen, Z. Liu, Z. Dou, J.-R. Wen, Large language models for information retrieval: A survey, ACM Transactions on Information Systems 44 (2025) 1–54

    2025

  2. [2]

    Lewis, E

    P. Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, V. Karpukhin, N. Goyal, H. Küttler, M. Lewis, W.-t. Yih, T. Rocktäschel, et al., Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 33 (2020) 9459–9474

    2020

  3. [3]

    Izacard, E

    G. Izacard, E. Grave, Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering, in: Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2021, pp. 874–880

    2021

  4. [4]

    K. Guu, K. Lee, Z. Tung, P. Pasupat, M. Chang, Retrieval augmented language model pre-training, in: International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2020, pp. 3929–3938

    2020

  5. [5]

    B. Ni, Z. Liu, L. Wang, Y. Lei, Y. Zhao, X. Cheng, Q. Zeng, L. Dong, Y. Xia, K. Kenthapadi, et al., Towards trustworthy retrieval augmented generation for large language models: A survey, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06872 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Wardle, H

    C. Wardle, H. Derakhshan, Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking, volume 27, Council of Europe Strasbourg, 2017

    2017

  7. [7]

    Del Vicario, A

    M. Del Vicario, A. Bessi, F. Zollo, F. Petroni, A. Scala, G. Caldarelli, H. E. Stanley, W. Quattrociocchi, The spreading of misinformation online, Proceedings of the national academy of Sciences 113 (2016) 554–559

    2016

  8. [8]

    Fernández-Pichel, M

    M. Fernández-Pichel, M. Petrocchi, K. Roitero, M. Viviani, Romcir 2026: Overview of the 6th workshop on reducing online misinformation through credible information retrieval, in: European Conference on Information Retrieval, Springer, 2026

    2026

  9. [9]

    Karpukhin, B

    V. Karpukhin, B. Oguz, S. Min, P. S. Lewis, L. Wu, S. Edunov, D. Chen, W.-t. Yih, Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering., in: The 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 2020, pp. 6769–6781

    2020

  10. [10]

    Robertson, H

    S. Robertson, H. Zaragoza, et al., The probabilistic relevance framework: Bm25 and beyond, Foundations and Trends®in Information Retrieval. 3 (2009) 333–389

    2009

  11. [11]

    Omrani, A

    P. Omrani, A. Hosseini, K. Hooshanfar, Z. Ebrahimian, R. Toosi, M. Ali Akhaee, Hybrid retrieval- augmented generation approach for llms query response enhancement, in: 10th International Conference on Web Research (ICWR), 2024, pp. 22–26

    2024

  12. [12]

    S. Es, J. James, L. E. Anke, S. Schockaert, Ragas: Automated evaluation of retrieval augmented generation, in: Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, 2024, pp. 150–158

    2024

  13. [13]

    Petroni, A

    F. Petroni, A. Piktus, A. Fan, P. Lewis, M. Yazdani, N. De Cao, J. Thorne, Y. Jernite, V. Karpukhin, J. Maillard, et al., Kilt: a benchmark for knowledge intensive language tasks, in: Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 2021, pp. 2523–2544

    2021

  14. [14]

    Kadavath, T

    S. Kadavath, T. Conerly, A. Askell, T. Henighan, D. Drain, E. Perez, N. Schiefer, Z. Hatfield-Dodds, N. DasSarma, E. Tran-Johnson, et al., Language models (mostly) know what they know, arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05221 (2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Z. Ji, N. Lee, R. Frieske, T. Yu, D. Su, Y. Xu, E. Ishii, Y. J. Bang, A. Madotto, P. Fung, Survey of hallucination in natural language generation, ACM Computing Surveys. 55 (2023) 1–38

    2023

  16. [16]

    Soudani, H

    H. Soudani, H. Zamani, F. Hasibi, Uncertainty quantification for retrieval-augmented reasoning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.11483 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    J. Xue, M. Zheng, Y. Hu, F. Liu, X. Chen, Q. Lou, BADRAG: Identifying vulnerabilities in retrieval augmented generation of large language models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00083 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    W. Zou, R. Geng, B. Wang, J. Jia, PoisonedRAG: Knowledge corruption attacks to retrieval- augmented generation of large language models, in: 34th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 25), 2025, pp. 3827–3844

    2025

  19. [19]

    Y. Shao, X. Lin, H. Luo, C. Hou, G. Xiong, J. Yu, J. Shi, POISONCRAFT: Practical poisoning of retrieval-augmented generation for large language models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06579 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Y. Wu, X. Liu, Y. Li, Y. Gao, Y. Ding, J. Ding, X. Zheng, X. Ma, ADMIT: Few-shot knowledge poisoning attacks on rag-based fact checking, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13842 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    S. Lin, J. Hilton, O. Evans, Truthfulqa: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods, 2022, URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2109.07958 1 (2021)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022