Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2603.24218

Who Benefits from RAG? The Role of Exposure, Utility and Attribution Bias

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) enhanced with Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) have achieved substantial improvements in accuracy by grounding their responses in external documents that are relevant to the user's query. However, relatively little work has investigated the impact of RAG in terms of fairness. Particularly, it is not yet known if queries that are associated with certain groups within a fairness category systematically receive higher accuracy, or accuracy improvements in RAG systems compared to LLM-only, a phenomenon we refer to as query group fairness. In this work, we conduct extensive experiments to investigate the impact of three key factors on query group fairness in RAG, namely: Group exposure, i.e., the proportion of documents from each group appearing in the retrieved set, determined by the retriever; Group utility, i.e., the degree to which documents from each group contribute to improving answer accuracy, capturing retriever-generator interactions; and Group attribution, i.e., the extent to which the generator relies on documents from each group when producing responses. We examine group-level average accuracy and accuracy improvements disparities across four fairness categories using three datasets derived from the TREC 2022 Fair Ranking Track for two tasks: article generation and title generation. Our findings show that RAG systems suffer from the query group fairness problem and amplify disparities in terms of average accuracy across queries from different groups, compared to an LLM-only setting. Moreover, group utility, exposure, and attribution can exhibit strong positive or negative correlations with average accuracy or accuracy improvements of queries from that group, highlighting their important role in fair RAG. Our data and code are publicly available from Github.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mahdi Dehghan, Graham McDonald. 2026-03-25. Who Benefits from RAG? The Role of Exposure, Utility and Attribution Bias. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.24218

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Parameterized Dense-Sparse Fusion for Hybrid Retrieval: Tuning a Rank-Score Mix on BEIR SciFact with Qdrant

We study a parameterized hybrid ranker that fuses a dense embedding list and a sparse lexical list. The method has a small, explicit parameter vector: a dense prior $α\in [0,1]$, a score-versus-rank mix $λ\in [0,1]$, an RRF smoothing parameter $κ> 0$, optional list-geometry coefficients that move $α$ per query, and a router margin $τ$ that can turn sparse search off. We grid-search those ranges on SciFact train (809 queries) and freeze the chosen values on SciFact test (300). The tuned rank-score mix ($α= 0.8$, $λ= 0.75$, $κ= 20$) reaches 0.753 nDCG@10 and 0.889 recall@10, outperforming dense BGE (0.742 / 0.871) and equal-weight RRF (0.707 nDCG@10) on that test split. A list-conditioned $α$ adds +0.0006 nDCG; a sparse-off router is rejected by the same train split (any $τ$ that skipped approximately 50% of queries lost nDCG). These coefficients are dataset-specific. Equal RRF with the same models does not beat dense on a nine-zip BEIR macro-average (0.479 vs. 0.519 nDCG@10). Repeating the same train-then-freeze sweep independently on all 20 indexed units beats equal RRF on 20/20 and dense on 16/20 (unit-mean nDCG@10 0.467 vs. 0.462 dense vs. 0.420 RRF). Other corpora should reuse the ranges, not a copy of the SciFact point.

cs.IR

From Ranked Documents to Reliable Contexts: An Answer-Oriented Context Construct Framework for AI Search

Traditional Web search follows a human-facing paradigm in which users inspect ranked documents and synthesize information themselves. In AI Search, retrieved documents instead serve as inputs to a generation model, shifting the retrieval objective from ranking documents by Search Satisfaction to constructing reliable context for correct answer generation. We formulate this shift as answer-oriented context construction through a three-stage framework: (1) Answer Support identifies candidate documents that contribute information to answer generation; (2) Content Trustworthiness assesses whether this information provides a reliable basis for correct answers from source, temporal, and factual perspectives; and (3) Context Organization selects, consolidates, and structures retained information under a finite context budget for consistent and robust generation. We further develop an industrial workflow spanning prior and posterior optimization and establish a systematic evaluation protocol covering both retrieval-side context and final answers. Experiments show consistent improvements at both Retrieval and Answer levels, demonstrating the effectiveness of the framework and its industrial implementation.

cs.IR

Robust Fusion of Semantic and Behavioural Signals for LLM Reranking in Personalised Search

Personalised search must satisfy query intent while incorporating user context and historical interactions. LLM-based cross-encoders provide a single reranking interface, but injecting predictive behavioural statistics into their prompts can encourage shortcut learning: reliance on historical signals at the expense of semantic and user-context patterns that generalise to sparse or unseen searches. We study this problem in the personalised search system of a large-scale audio streaming platform using Query Slice Stats (QSS), an interaction-derived behavioural feature summarising historical success for query-candidate pairs. Naive QSS injection improves ranking when the feature is available but reduces robustness when it is removed. We address this with deterministic dual-sample feature-dropout training, which presents each example once with QSS included and once with QSS removed. Offline, QSS injection improves ranking quality by 13.3% when available. Dual-sample training preserves these gains while improving performance under QSS-removed evaluation by 4.0% relative to naive QSS training. In a live online test, both QSS-aware variants improve search success by roughly 2%. The aggregate test does not distinguish dual-sample from features-only training; the cold-start comparison is directionally consistent with the offline results. Paired feature-present and feature-removed training can therefore reduce the tension between exploiting strong behavioural statistics and remaining robust when they are unavailable.

cs.IR