Examining the influence of the RAG framework, comprising ideological discourses, in LLM-generated answers shows that the RAG framework is prone to transferring ideological discourses into LLM responses, with sampling temperature having a measurable impact on the strength of this transfer.
Abstract
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has been increasingly adopted to reduce hallucinations and strengthen the factual grounding of large language models (LLMs). While robustness to errors in the retrieval process has been explored, the impact of ideological bias on LLM outputs has been overlooked. For instance, if the retrieved material contains ideological positions, the RAG may transmit, amplify, or suppress such ideological discourses in its outputs. In this study, we address this issue by examining the influence of the RAG framework, comprising ideological discourses, in LLM-generated answers. To this end, we applied Lexical Multidimensional Analysis (LMDA) on a corpus of 1,117 COVID-19 treatment articles, identifying three ideological discourses. This corpus is then used as the external knowledge source for the RAG. We assessed several LLMs by having the models answer ideological questions at different sampling temperatures. The generated texts were assessed semantically and lexically based on their similarities with ideological reference texts. Our findings show that the RAG framework is prone to transferring ideological discourses into LLM responses, with sampling temperature having a measurable impact on the strength of this transfer. Discoursive alignment between generated answers and the reference text is highest at moderate temperatures, where models balance stochasticity with retrieval grounding, and drops at low temperatures, indicating that overly deterministic sampling suppresses discourse transfer.
Recently the Large language models have demonstrated substantial improvements in natural language processing, understanding and generation. Despite these advances, they remain prone to producing outputs that are fluent yet factually incorrect, a limitation commonly referred to as hallucination. This issue is of particu...
Dhanraj R. Dhotre· Natural Resources for Human...· 0 citations
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, ov...
Sanchita H., Skandamahima V. M., Akshitha Katkeri· International Journal of Inn...· 0 citations
It is concluded that RAG should be viewed as a grounding and evidence-access mechanism rather than a guarantee of hallucination-free generation, and applications of RAG are outlined.
Shyalaja L. N., Shantinath Patil, P. R. et al.· International Journal for Re...· 0 citations
Large language models (LLMs) often generate fluent but factually unsupported or logically invalid text: failure modes broadly referred to as hallucination. A variety of approaches have been proposed to mitigate hallucination, ranging from careful benchmark design, preference modeling, and fine-tuning (e.g., RLHF) to po...
Syed Mubashir· Princeton Journal of Pre-Col...· 0 citations
Large language models (LLMs) have achieved significant advancements in natural language processing tasks, but they remain prone to generating hallucinations—outputs that are logically inconsistent or factually incorrect. While previous research has primarily focused on hallucinations in affirmative contexts, how negate...
Jaehyung Seo, Hyeonseok Moon, Heu-Jeoung Lim· ACM Transactions on Knowledg...· 0 citations
Large language models (LLMs) can generate fluent and confident responses that are factually incorrect, unsupported by evidence, or inconsistent with the source material. These hallucinations reduce the reliability of LLM-based question answering, summariza tion, dialogue, and information retrieval systems, especially w...