From Facts to Conclusions : Integrating Deductive Reasoning in Retrieval-Augmented LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.16795v1
• Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 17:27:51 GMT
• Title: From Facts to Conclusions : Integrating Deductive Reasoning in Retrieval-Augmented LLMs
• Abstract summary: We propose a reasoning-trace-augmented RAG framework that adds structured, interpretable reasoning across three stages.<n>A Conflict-Aware Trust-Score (CATS) pipeline is introduced which evaluates groundedness, factual correctness, refusal accuracy, and conflict-behavior alignment.
• Score: 5.838119242443381
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) grounds large language models (LLMs) in external evidence, but fails when retrieved sources conflict or contain outdated or subjective information. Prior work address these issues independently but lack unified reasoning supervision. We propose a reasoning-trace-augmented RAG framework that adds structured, interpretable reasoning across three stages : (1) document-level adjudication, (2) conflict analysis, and (3) grounded synthesis, producing citation-linked answers or justified refusals. A Conflict-Aware Trust-Score (CATS) pipeline is introduced which evaluates groundedness, factual correctness, refusal accuracy, and conflict-behavior alignment using an LLM-as-a-Judge. Our 539-query reasoning dataset and evaluation pipeline establish a foundation for conflict-aware, interpretable RAG systems. Experimental results demonstrate substantial gains over baselines, most notably with Qwen, where Supervised Fine-Tuning improved End-to-End answer correctness from 0.069 to 0.883 and behavioral adherence from 0.074 to 0.722.

Related papers

• EvidentialRAG: Quantifying and Mitigating Information Conflict in Multi-Source Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Evidential Deep Learning [0.2730969268472861]
  This paper introduces ERAG, an uncertainty-aware RAG framework that converts retrieved chunks into probabilistic evidence before generation.<n>Experiments on CRAG, ConflictQA, and MuSiQue show that ERAG remains competitive with the strongest matched baseline on standard question answering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-11T21:56:15Z)
• ConflictRAG: Detecting and Resolving Knowledge Conflicts in Retrieval Augmented Generation [10.475475632969799]
  We present ConflictRAG, a conflict-aware RAG framework that detects, classifies, and resolves knowledge conflicts prior to answer generation.<n>The framework reduces API costs by 62% while maintaining 90.8% detection accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T07:25:29Z)
• SURE-RAG: Sufficiency and Uncertainty-Aware Evidence Verification for Selective Retrieval-Augmented Generation [6.604874054866016]
  We present SURE-RAG, a transparent aggregation protocol built on the observation that evidence sufficiency is a set-level property.<n>A shared pair-level claim-evidence verifier produces local relation distributions, which SURE-RAG aggregates into interpretable answer-level signals.<n>We evaluate on HotpotQA-RAG v3, a controlled multi-hop benchmark, under an artifact-aware protocol.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-05T09:05:40Z)
• Explainable AML Triage with LLMs: Evidence Retrieval and Counterfactual Checks [19.272001035427987]
  We propose an explainable AML triage framework that treats triage as an evidence-constrained decision process.<n>Our method combines (i) retrieval-augmented evidence bundling from policy/typology guidance, customer context, alert triggers, and transaction subgraphs, (ii) a structured LLM output contract that requires explicit citations and separates supporting from contradicting or missing evidence, and (iii) counterfactual checks that validate whether minimal, plausible perturbations lead to coherent changes in both the triage recommendation and its rationale.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-22T05:51:40Z)
• Criterion Validity of LLM-as-Judge for Business Outcomes in Conversational Commerce [10.670366057920205]
  Multi-dimensional dialogue evaluation is widely used to assess conversational AI.<n>It remains largely untested whether quality scores are associated with the downstream outcomes they are meant to serve.<n>We test a 7-dimension evaluation rubric (implemented via LLM-as-Judge) against verified business conversion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T04:47:42Z)
• CausalFlip: A Benchmark for LLM Causal Judgment Beyond Semantic Matching [50.65932158912512]
  We propose a new causal reasoning benchmark, CausalFlip, to encourage the development of new large language models.<n>CaulFlip consists of causal judgment questions built over event triples that could form different confounder, chain, and collider relations.<n>We evaluate LLMs under multiple training paradigms, including answer-only training, explicit Chain-of-Thought supervision, and a proposed internalized causal reasoning approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T18:06:15Z)
• RFEval: Benchmarking Reasoning Faithfulness under Counterfactual Reasoning Intervention in Large Reasoning Models [5.733004743054914]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) exhibit strong performance, yet often produce rationales that sound plausible but fail to reflect their true decision process.<n>We introduce a formal framework for reasoning faithfulness, defined by two testable conditions.<n>We present RFEval, a benchmark of 7,186 instances that probes faithfulness via controlled, output-level counterfactual interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T03:49:37Z)
• ReLoop: Structured Modeling and Behavioral Verification for Reliable LLM-Based Optimization [6.572539312871392]
  Large language models (LLMs) can translate natural language into optimization code, but silent failures pose a critical risk.<n>We introduce ReLoop, addressing silent failures from two complementary directions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-17T20:20:33Z)
• Towards Comprehensive Stage-wise Benchmarking of Large Language Models in Fact-Checking [64.97768177044355]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world fact-checking systems.<n>We present FactArena, a fully automated arena-style evaluation framework.<n>Our analyses reveal significant discrepancies between static claim-verification accuracy and end-to-end fact-checking competence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-06T02:51:56Z)
• Look As You Think: Unifying Reasoning and Visual Evidence Attribution for Verifiable Document RAG via Reinforcement Learning [55.232400251303794]
  Look As You Think (LAT) is a reinforcement learning framework that trains models to produce verifiable reasoning paths with consistent attribution.<n>LAT consistently improves the vanilla model in both single- and multi-image settings, yielding average gains of 8.23% in soft exact match (EM) and 47.0% in IoU@0.5.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-15T02:50:23Z)
• Probing Latent Knowledge Conflict for Faithful Retrieval-Augmented Generation [46.03923254984181]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a powerful paradigm to enhance the factuality of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Existing approaches to improving contextual faithfulness rely on external interventions, such as prompt engineering, decoding constraints, or reward-based fine-tuning.<n>We propose CLEAR (Conflict-Localized and Enhanced Attention for RAG), a framework that decomposes context into fine-grained sentence-level knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T12:48:24Z)
• HALF: Harm-Aware LLM Fairness Evaluation Aligned with Deployment [52.374772443536045]
  HALF (Harm-Aware LLM Fairness) is a framework that assesses model bias in realistic applications and weighs the outcomes by harm severity.<n>We show that HALF exposes a clear gap between previous benchmarking success and deployment readiness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T07:13:26Z)
• Rethinking All Evidence: Enhancing Trustworthy Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Conflict-Driven Summarization [11.875601079871865]
  We propose CARE-RAG (Conflict-Aware and Reliable Evidence for RAG), a novel framework that improves trustworthiness through Conflict-Driven Summarization of all available evidence.<n>To detect and summarize conflicts, we distill a 3B LLaMA3.2 model to perform conflict-driven summarization, enabling reliable synthesis across multiple sources.<n>Experiments on revised QA datasets with retrieval data show that CARE-RAG consistently outperforms strong RAG baselines, especially in scenarios with noisy or conflicting evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-02T01:39:49Z)
• CRAVE: A Conflicting Reasoning Approach for Explainable Claim Verification Using LLMs [15.170312674645535]
  CRAVE is a Conflicting Reasoning Approach for explainable claim VErification.<n>It can verify complex claims based on the conflicting rationales reasoned by large language models.<n>CRAVE achieves much better performance than state-of-the-art methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T07:20:31Z)
• Retrieval is Not Enough: Enhancing RAG Reasoning through Test-Time Critique and Optimization [58.390885294401066]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become a widely adopted paradigm for enabling knowledge-grounded large language models (LLMs)<n>RAG pipelines often fail to ensure that model reasoning remains consistent with the evidence retrieved, leading to factual inconsistencies or unsupported conclusions.<n>We propose AlignRAG, a novel iterative framework grounded in Critique-Driven Alignment (CDA)<n>We introduce AlignRAG-auto, an autonomous variant that dynamically terminates refinement, removing the need to pre-specify the number of critique iterations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T04:56:47Z)
• Making Large Language Models Better Reasoners with Alignment [57.82176656663245]
  Reasoning is a cognitive process of using evidence to reach a sound conclusion. Recent studies reveal that fine-tuning LLMs on data with the chain of thought (COT) reasoning process can significantly enhance their reasoning capabilities. We introduce an textitAlignment Fine-Tuning (AFT) paradigm, which involves three steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-05T11:32:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.