Quantifying Document Impact in RAG-LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.05260v1
• Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 00:47:13 GMT
• Title: Quantifying Document Impact in RAG-LLMs
• Authors: Armin Gerami, Kazem Faghih, Ramani Duraiswami,
• Abstract summary: We introduce the Influence Score (IS), a novel metric based on Partial Information Decomposition that measures the impact of each retrieved document on the generated response.<n>First, a poison attack simulation across three datasets demonstrates that IS correctly identifies the malicious document as the most influential in $86%$ of cases.<n>Second, an ablation study shows that a response generated using only the top-ranked documents is consistently judged more similar to the original response than one generated from the remaining documents.
• Score: 9.10734114158633
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) enhances Large Language Models (LLMs) by connecting them to external knowledge, improving accuracy and reducing outdated information. However, this introduces challenges such as factual inconsistencies, source conflicts, bias propagation, and security vulnerabilities, which undermine the trustworthiness of RAG systems. A key gap in current RAG evaluation is the lack of a metric to quantify the contribution of individual retrieved documents to the final output. To address this, we introduce the Influence Score (IS), a novel metric based on Partial Information Decomposition that measures the impact of each retrieved document on the generated response. We validate IS through two experiments. First, a poison attack simulation across three datasets demonstrates that IS correctly identifies the malicious document as the most influential in $86\%$ of cases. Second, an ablation study shows that a response generated using only the top-ranked documents by IS is consistently judged more similar to the original response than one generated from the remaining documents. These results confirm the efficacy of IS in isolating and quantifying document influence, offering a valuable tool for improving the transparency and reliability of RAG systems.

Related papers

• Improved Evidence Extraction for Document Inconsistency Detection with LLMs [10.610567456326235]
  We introduce new comprehensive evidence-extraction metrics and a redact-and-retry framework with constrained filtering.<n>We back our claims with promising experimental results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-06T00:58:20Z)
• Towards Reliable Retrieval in RAG Systems for Large Legal Datasets [6.376251215279889]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is a promising approach to mitigate hallucinations in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>This is particularly challenging in the legal domain, where large databases of structurally similar documents often cause retrieval systems to fail.<n>We investigate a simple and computationally efficient technique which enhances each text chunk with a document-level synthetic summary.<n>Our work provides evidence that this practical, scalable, and easily integrable technique enhances the reliability of RAG systems when applied to large-scale legal document datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-08T13:22:20Z)
• ReliabilityRAG: Effective and Provably Robust Defense for RAG-based Web-Search [69.60882125603133]
  We present ReliabilityRAG, a framework for adversarial robustness that explicitly leverages reliability information of retrieved documents.<n>Our work is a significant step towards more effective, provably robust defenses against retrieved corpus corruption in RAG.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-27T22:36:42Z)
• Divide-Then-Align: Honest Alignment based on the Knowledge Boundary of RAG [51.120170062795566]
  We propose Divide-Then-Align (DTA) to endow RAG systems with the ability to respond with "I don't know" when the query is out of the knowledge boundary.<n>DTA balances accuracy with appropriate abstention, enhancing the reliability and trustworthiness of retrieval-augmented systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T08:21:21Z)
• Resolving Conflicting Evidence in Automated Fact-Checking: A Study on Retrieval-Augmented LLMs [12.923119372847834]
  This paper presents the first systematic evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) models for fact-checking.<n>Experiments reveal critical vulnerabilities in state-of-the-art RAG methods, particularly in resolving conflicts stemming from differences in media source credibility.<n>Our results show that effectively incorporating source credibility significantly enhances the ability of RAG models to resolve conflicting evidence and improve fact-checking performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T11:35:03Z)
• GRADA: Graph-based Reranking against Adversarial Documents Attack [34.387997687424004]
  Adversarial Document Attacks manipulate the retrieval process by introducing documents that are adversarial yet semantically similar to the query.<n>We propose a Graph-based Reranking against Adversarial Document Attacks framework aiming at preserving retrieval quality while significantly reducing the success of adversaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-12T13:27:35Z)
• Document Attribution: Examining Citation Relationships using Large Language Models [62.46146670035751]
  We propose a zero-shot approach that frames attribution as a straightforward textual entailment task.<n>We also explore the role of the attention mechanism in enhancing the attribution process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-09T04:40:11Z)
• Collapse of Dense Retrievers: Short, Early, and Literal Biases Outranking Factual Evidence [56.09494651178128]
  Retrieval models are commonly used in Information Retrieval (IR) applications, such as Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)<n>We quantify the impact of biases, such as a preference for shorter documents, on retrievers like Dragon+ and Contriever.<n>We uncover major vulnerabilities, showing retrievers favor shorter documents, early positions, repeated entities, and literal matches, all while ignoring the answer's presence!
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T23:23:13Z)
• Controlling Risk of Retrieval-augmented Generation: A Counterfactual Prompting Framework [77.45983464131977]
  We focus on how likely it is that a RAG model's prediction is incorrect, resulting in uncontrollable risks in real-world applications.<n>Our research identifies two critical latent factors affecting RAG's confidence in its predictions.<n>We develop a counterfactual prompting framework that induces the models to alter these factors and analyzes the effect on their answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-24T14:52:14Z)
• Factual Error Correction for Abstractive Summaries Using Entity Retrieval [57.01193722520597]
  We propose an efficient factual error correction system RFEC based on entities retrieval post-editing process. RFEC retrieves the evidence sentences from the original document by comparing the sentences with the target summary. Next, RFEC detects the entity-level errors in the summaries by considering the evidence sentences and substitutes the wrong entities with the accurate entities from the evidence sentences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-18T11:35:02Z)
• GERE: Generative Evidence Retrieval for Fact Verification [57.78768817972026]
  We propose GERE, the first system that retrieves evidences in a generative fashion. The experimental results on the FEVER dataset show that GERE achieves significant improvements over the state-of-the-art baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-12T03:49:35Z)

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.