dorsal/arxiv
View SchemaRational Synthesizers or Heuristic Followers? Analyzing LLMs in RAG-based Question-Answering
| Authors | Atharv Naphade |
|---|---|
| Categories | |
| ArXiv ID | 2601.06189vv1 |
| URL | https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.06189 |
| License | http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/ |
Abstract
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is the prevailing paradigm for grounding Large Language Models (LLMs), yet the mechanisms governing how models integrate groups of conflicting retrieved evidence remain opaque. Does an LLM answer a certain way because the evidence is factually strong, because of a prior belief, or merely because it is repeated frequently? To answer this, we introduce GroupQA, a curated dataset of 1,635 controversial questions paired with 15,058 diversely-sourced evidence documents, annotated for stance and qualitative strength. Through controlled experiments, we characterize group-level evidence aggregation dynamics: Paraphrasing an argument can be more persuasive than providing distinct independent support; Models favor evidence presented first rather than last, and Larger models are increasingly resistant to adapt to presented evidence. Additionally, we find that LLM explanations to group-based answers are unfaithful. Together, we show that LLMs behave consistently as vulnerable heuristic followers, with direct implications for improving RAG system design.
{
"annotation_id": "681dc3e1-5241-46b4-ac47-a1495ba10c2c",
"date_created": "2026-02-17T05:53:08.670000Z",
"date_modified": "2026-02-17T05:53:08.670000Z",
"file_hash": "0e0fe6af69c2255dbaf03ab0c3c4b789435808470b9ce288e0ba960a39d3ffbe",
"private": false,
"record": {
"abstract": "Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is the prevailing paradigm for grounding Large Language Models (LLMs), yet the mechanisms governing how models integrate groups of conflicting retrieved evidence remain opaque. Does an LLM answer a certain way because the evidence is factually strong, because of a prior belief, or merely because it is repeated frequently? To answer this, we introduce GroupQA, a curated dataset of 1,635 controversial questions paired with 15,058 diversely-sourced evidence documents, annotated for stance and qualitative strength. Through controlled experiments, we characterize group-level evidence aggregation dynamics: Paraphrasing an argument can be more persuasive than providing distinct independent support; Models favor evidence presented first rather than last, and Larger models are increasingly resistant to adapt to presented evidence. Additionally, we find that LLM explanations to group-based answers are unfaithful. Together, we show that LLMs behave consistently as vulnerable heuristic followers, with direct implications for improving RAG system design.",
"arxiv_id": "2601.06189",
"authors": [
"Atharv Naphade"
],
"categories": [
"cs.AI",
"cs.LG"
],
"license": "http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/",
"title": "Rational Synthesizers or Heuristic Followers? Analyzing LLMs in RAG-based Question-Answering",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.06189",
"version": "v1"
},
"schema_id": "dorsal/arxiv",
"source": {
"execution_id": "1dca8892-cc97-46e3-9917-227b2706a753",
"id": "arXiv Dataset",
"type": "Model",
"variant": "snapshot-2026-01-17",
"version": "0.1.0"
},
"user_id": 1000002
}