Dual-Confidence Contrastive Decoding for Retrieval-Augmented Generation
For RAG systems dealing with conflicting retrieved documents, DCCD provides a training-free decoding method that improves answer accuracy by leveraging document-level and token-level confidence signals.
The paper introduces Dual-Confidence Contrastive Decoding (DCCD) to handle intra-context conflicts in multi-document retrieval-augmented generation, achieving the best average performance across DRQA and standard benchmarks, with largest gains on DRQA.
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) increasingly requires models to answer questions from multiple retrieved documents, where only some sources are relevant and the retrieved bundle may contain stale, noisy, or conflicting evidence. Existing contrastive decoding methods primarily focus on resolving conflicts between the model's internal memory and the retrieved context. In contrast, we study the complementary problem of intra-context conflict in multi-document RAG. To evaluate this setting, we introduce DRQA, a factual-conflict question answering benchmark derived from enterprise deep-research scenarios, where answers are grounded in synthetic enterprise-specific facts that are designed not to be recoverable from the model's internal memory. We further propose Dual-Confidence Contrastive Decoding (DCCD), a training-free decoding method that combines document-level confidence, which estimates whether a document appears sufficient for answering the question, with token-level confidence, which estimates whether that document supports a confident next-token prediction. DCCD selects positive and negative document-conditioned streams using these dual-confidence signals and scales a document-level contrast by their confidence margin. Across DRQA and standard multi-document QA benchmarks, DCCD achieves the best average performance among full-context and contrastive decoding baselines, with the largest gains on DRQA. These results highlight the importance of source-aware, confidence-gated decoding when retrieved evidence is internally conflicting.