Atharv Naphade

Atharv Naphade

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.

Krish Matta, Atharv Naphade, Andy Zou

Calibration is the primary criterion for evaluating LLM confidence, but it is insufficient: it admits trivially incoherent estimators, depends on the evaluation distribution, and does not test the extent to which the estimation can be interpreted as a consistent, underlying probability function. What we actually need is for LLM confidence estimates to satisfy the conditions required of coherent probabilistic beliefs. We formalize these conditions along three axes (structural coherence, faithfulness, and usefulness) and operationalize them as the C1 metrics. Widely used estimators systematically violate these conditions despite appearing well-calibrated: models assign lower confidence to logically easier questions 31\% of the time, and common interventions reducing RMSCE leave structural violations unchanged, suggesting that calibration is orthogonal to probabilistic validity. RLHF and chain-of-thought improve usefulness metrics without restoring coherence. Our results show current LLM confidence estimates cannot be interpreted as coherent probabilities; our framework provides the tools to measure and close this gap.