Why Retrieval Doesn't Cure Everything: A Review of Hallucination in Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Abstract
responses depending on domain, retriever quality, and
model family. This paper reviews the literature on why RAG systems continue to hallucinate even when correct evidence is
available in context, organizes the reported causes into a five-part taxonomy (retrieval failure, conflicting evidence,
unfaithful generation, over-reliance on parametric memory, and stale source content), and surveys the detection methods
(NLI-based faithfulness scoring, LLM-as-judge, internal-state probing, evidence-graph consistency) and mitigation
strategies (corrective retrieval, self-reflective generation, verification loops, faithfulness fine-tuning) proposed against each
cause. We synthesize benchmark statistics across RAGTruth, RAGBench, and HalluRAG, and close with open challenges:
the absence of a standardized evaluation protocol, the compounding of hallucination in multi-hop and agentic RAG, and the
persistent gap between embedding-based detectors and reliable detection under real, model-generated hallucinations.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Knowledge Management Perspective of Generative Artificial Intelligence
- Navigating Generative Artificial Intelligence Promises and Perils for Knowledge and Creative Work
- Characterizing the evolving research on enterprise content management
- Large language models and multimodal foundation models for precision oncology
- From Generative AI to Extended Reality: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on the Challenges, Opportunities, and Future of Educational Computing
- Generative Artificial Intelligence: A New Engine for Advancing Environmental Science and Engineering
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.