Feedback-Assisted Trust Propagation over Document Relation Graphs for Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Pairwise consistency loss. We encourage two documents with positive relation labels to have similar trust scores, while enforcing that contradictory documents have diverging trust scores. Specifically, if $d_{i}$ and $d_{j}$ are mutually supportive ($\ell_{ij}=+1$), their trust scores $\tau_{i}$ and $\tau_{j}$ should be close to each other, i.e., we aim to minimize $(\tau_{i}-\tau_{j})^{2}$; whereas if $\ell_{ij}=-1$, meaning that $d_{i}$ and $d_{j}$ are contradictory, their trust scores should be far apart so that at most one document can be trusted, i.e., we aim to minimize $(\tau_{i}+\tau_{j}-1)^{2}$. Hence, we define the pairwise consistency loss $\mathcal{L}_{\text{pair}}$:

Feedback loss. Over time, we maintain a feedback set $\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{F}^{+}\cup\mathcal{F}^{-}$: $\mathcal{F}^{+}$ for documents marked as reliable through user feedback, and $\mathcal{F}^{-}$ for documents marked as unreliable. We incorporate this feedback into the optimization problem of trust score estimation. Nodes in $\mathcal{F}^{+}$ are encouraged to have high trust scores, e.g., by minimizing $(\tau_{i}-\tau^{+})^{2}$, where $\tau^{+}$ is close to $1$. In contrast, nodes in $\mathcal{F}^{-}$ are pushed toward lower trust scores, e.g., by minimizing $(\tau_{i}-\tau^{-})^{2}$, where $\tau^{-}$ is close to $0$, to limit their influence on answer generation. We implement this by adding a feedback term $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{fb}}$ to the optimization problem of trust score estimation. $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{fb}}$ is formulated as

where $y_{i}$ is the feedback value.

Formulating trust score optimization problem. To capture pairwise consistency of documents and incorporate user feedback, we jointly optimize objective function terms $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{pair}}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{fb}}$. We formulate the optimization problem to assign trust scores to all documents in the corpus:

where $\boldsymbol{\tau}=\{\tau_{1},\tau_{2},\cdots,\tau_{N}\}$ is the set of trust scores for all documents, and $\lambda_{f}$ controls the trade-off between the two terms.

Solving trust score optimization problem. Eq. (1) is a quadratic programming (QP) problem. We solve the problem with projected gradient descent (PGD). The document relation graph can contain many nodes but remains sparse (i.e., each node has supportive or contradictory relation labels with only a small number of other nodes). As a result, each PGD step only needs to compute the loss and gradients for document pairs connected by these relations, rather than all possible document pairs. Section 4.2 reports the measured cost of each stage in TrustPropRAG.

Theoretical analysis. Trust scores exhibit multi-hop propagation. Feedback on a document shifts its trust score; through pairwise document relations, this effect then spreads to its neighbors, which further propagate the influence to their neighbors. We formalize this behavior in two lemmas below. Since $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{pair}}\;+\;\lambda_{f}\,\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{fb}}$ is quadratic in $\boldsymbol{\tau}$, its Hessian $A=\nabla^{2}\mathcal{L}$ is symmetric positive semidefinite. We assume that every connected component of $G$ contains at least one document with feedback, which is sufficient to make $A$ strictly positive definite (see proof in Appendix C). Let $\sigma_{\min}\leq\cdots\leq\sigma_{\max}$ denote its eigenvalues and $\kappa=\sigma_{\max}/\sigma_{\min}$ its condition number. The unconstrained minimizer satisfies the linear system $A\boldsymbol{\tau}^{*}=\mathbf{b}$. We use this unconstrained solution to analyze trust propagation and convergence rate.

Datasets. We evaluate TrustPropRAG with three open-domain QA datasets: MS MARCO (Bajaj et al., 2016), Natural Questions (NQ) (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019), and TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017). These datasets are widely adopted in retrieval-augmented and open-domain QA evaluation, and together they cover diverse question types. Following the evaluation settings commonly used in prior RAG reliability and robustness studies (Shen et al., 2025; Zhong et al., 2023; Wei et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2025a), we randomly sample 300 query–answer instances for each dataset. Half of the sampled queries are paired with synthetic contradictory documents generated by following the method in PoisonedRAG (Zou et al., 2025). These documents are written to remain fluent and relevant to the query while supporting answers that conflict with the ground-truth answers. The remaining queries are paired only with factual documents from the original datasets. In this way, we construct the evaluation corpus from the relevant documents associated with the sampled queries, resulting in 805, 893, and 1,037 documents for MS MARCO, NQ, and TriviaQA, respectively. This setup evaluates whether the end-to-end system can produce correct answers when the corpus contains both reliable evidence and fluent but misleading contradictory content.

Retrievers. We evaluate with both sparse and dense retrievers. We use BM25 (Robertson and Zaragoza, 2009), a sparse lexical retriever, and two dense bi-encoder retrievers: Contriever (Izacard et al., 2022) and MiniLM based on all-MiniLM-L6-v2 (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). For each query, we retrieve $k{=}5$ documents.

Graph construction. We construct a document relation graph using two types of information: document sources and semantic relations between documents. Documents $i$ and $j$ from the same source are connected with supportive edges ($\ell_{ij}=+1$). In TriviaQA, we determine whether two documents share the same source based on their source Uniform Resource Locators (URLs). For MS MARCO and NQ, which do not provide source metadata, we use simulated source grouping: factual documents are partitioned into multiple source groups, and contradictory documents are partitioned into another set of source groups. Documents in the same group are treated as sharing the same source. We adopt this simulation as a proxy for real source metadata, following recent source-reliability-aware RAG work that simulates sources with varying reliability (Hwang et al., 2025). We also apply an NLI model (nli-deberta-v3-small) to each document pair. If the model predicts that two documents $i$ and $j$ support each other, we add a supportive edge ($\ell_{ij}=+1$). If it predicts that they contradict each other, we add a contradictory edge ($\ell_{ij}=-1$). Appendix F reports the precision and recall of the NLI-derived edges on all three datasets. Table 4 evaluates the impact of removing the source-group edges to isolate the contribution of the NLI-derived edges.

Feedback construction. We construct the feedback set by randomly sampling a fraction of factual and contradictory documents and simulating feedback labels for them. Sampled factual documents are assigned positive feedback labels, while sampled contradictory documents are assigned negative feedback labels. We refer to this sampling fraction as the feedback ratio (FB); for instance, FB = 30% means that feedback labels are provided for 30% of the documents. As real-world feedback may be imperfect, we evaluate TrustPropRAG under noisy feedback in Figure 2, where a portion of the feedback labels are incorrect.

Trust optimization. For PGD, we use a step size of $\eta=0.01$, run for at most $T=1000$ iterations, and stop when the convergence tolerance reaches $\epsilon=10^{-6}$. We set feedback loss weight $\lambda_{f}{=}1.0$. Trust scores are optimized over all corpus documents, resulting in large-scale optimization problems over 805, 893, and 1,037 documents for MS MARCO, NQ, and TriviaQA, respectively.

Rescoring. We set the trust coefficient to $\alpha{=}0.6$. We also test the impact of $\alpha$ in Section 4.2. The top-$k$ documents, where $k=5$ in our experiments, are provided as retrieved context to the LLM. We also test the impact of $k$ in Appendix B.

Answer generation. We use proprietary and open-source LLMs, including GPT-4o-mini, GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, and Mistral-7B-Instruct. TrustPropRAG leverages the trust-aware prompt that annotates each document with its trust score (as detailed in Section 3.4).

Evaluation metrics. We adopt exact match (EM) and fact precision@$k$ (FP@$k$) as evaluation metrics. EM is a widely used metric in open-domain QA. EM checks whether the normalized generated answer contains the ground-truth answer, with normalization including lowercasing and the removal of articles and punctuation. FP@$k$ evaluates retrieval quality, which measures the reliability of the top-ranked documents used for answer generation. Specifically, let $\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{fact}}$ and $\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{contr}}$ denote the sets of factual and contradictory documents, respectively, and let $\mathcal{R}_{k}(q)$ denote the top-$k$ documents for query $q$. FP@$k$ is defined as the fraction of factual documents among these top-$k$ documents: $\text{FP@}k=\frac{|\mathcal{R}_{k}(q)\cap\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{fact}}|}{|\mathcal{R}_{k}(q)\cap(\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{fact}}\cup\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{contr}})|}.$

Baselines. We compare TrustPropRAG against the following methods: (1) VanillaRAG ranks documents using the relevance scores produced by the retriever and feeds the top-ranked documents to the LLM. (2) InstructRAG (Wei et al., 2025) guides the LLM to better use retrieved evidence during generation. It decomposes retrieved documents into atomic claims, and prompts the LLM to generate a rationale connecting relevant claims to the final answer. (3) AstuteRAG (Wang et al., 2025a) combines the LLM’s internal knowledge with retrieved evidence. It first prompts the LLM to produce an answer-relevant document from its internal knowledge, and then compares this document with the retrieved documents and resolves conflicts before generating the answer. (4) ReliabilityRAG (Shen et al., 2025) uses NLI to identify contradictions among retrieved documents. It then solves a maximum independent set problem to select a subset of documents with no detected pairwise contradictions and uses keyword aggregation to generate the final answer. (5) TrustRAG (Zhou et al., 2025) includes a first-stage filtering procedure that clusters the retrieved documents by embedding similarity and filters out clusters identified as suspicious. We use this first-stage procedure as the baseline.

TrustPropRAG outperforms baselines on EM and FP@5. Tables 1 and 2 report the EM and FP@5 averaged over GPT-4o-mini, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and GPT-5. Table 1 shows that TrustPropRAG achieves the best EM across all datasets and retrievers, with absolute EM gains of 0.03–0.11 compared with the strongest baseline. Table 2 shows FP@5 (the fraction of factual documents among top-$k$ documents) of TrustPropRAG and baselines. All baselines have the same FP@5 as VanillaRAG under this retrieval-level metric: InstructRAG, AstuteRAG, and TrustRAG${}_{\text{stage 1}}$ operate after the retriever selects the top-$k$ documents based on query relevance and thus do not change the ranked top-$k$ documents; although ReliabilityRAG filters documents before final answer generation, its filtering is driven by intermediate LLM-generated answers and their consistency, rather than by producing a new top-$k$ list. The baseline methods have an FP@5 of 38–57%, while TrustPropRAG raises it to 77–96%. The improvement is observed with all three retrievers, indicating that the method is not tied to a specific retriever. These improvements in FP@5 help explain the EM gains of TrustPropRAG. Specifically, a higher FP@5 indicates that the top-$k$ list contains a larger fraction of factual documents, which suggests that trust score optimization assigns higher trust to more reliable documents, and trust-aware rescoring promotes them into the top-$k$ list. As a result, the LLM inputs contain more documents that support the correct answer.

Ablation study. We conduct an ablation study to examine the contribution of each component in TrustPropRAG. Table 3 evaluates five variants on MS MARCO with FB=30% using Gemini 2.5 Flash. We observe that the combination of trust score optimization and trust-aware rescoring leads to a substantial improvement. Compared with VanillaRAG, adding these two components increases FP@5 from 54% to 87% and improves EM from 0.28 to 0.41. This suggests that the optimized trust scores are effective for identifying more trustworthy documents and that rescoring can promote them into the top-$k$ context used for answer generation. We also observe that trust-aware prompting provides an additional benefit when combined with trust score optimization and trust-aware rescoring, increasing EM from 0.41 to 0.46. This suggests that some low-trust documents may still remain in the top-$k$ list after rescoring, and trust-aware prompting helps the LLM reduce their influence during answer generation. Finally, we observe that using trust-aware prompting alone does not improve performance. Without trust score optimization, FP@5 remains at 54%, and EM slightly decreases from 0.28 to 0.27 compared with VanillaRAG. This suggests the trust-aware prompt becomes useful only when the trust scores have been optimized and can provide a meaningful signal for answer generation.

The effects of trust propagation and source-group edges. To separate the benefit of trust propagation from simply having access to feedback, the trivial feedback variant uses the same feedback set as TrustPropRAG but does not propagate the feedback through the graph. Documents with positive feedback receive a boost to their retrieval scores, while documents with negative feedback are not included in the top-$k$ list. To isolate the contribution of the NLI-derived edges from source-group edges, the NLI-only variant removes all simulated source-group edges and retains only the NLI-derived edges.

Performance under noisy feedback. Figure 2 evaluates the robustness of TrustPropRAG by varying the accuracy of feedback labels from 60% to 100%. Feedback accuracy denotes the fraction of feedback labels that are correct. For example, 80% feedback accuracy means that 20% of the feedback labels are flipped: a factual document may be labeled as low-trust, or a contradictory document may be labeled as high-trust. Figure 2 reports EM on MS MARCO with Gemini 2.5 Flash. We observe that TrustPropRAG is robust to noisy feedback. Even when feedback accuracy is only 60% (i.e., 40% of feedback labels are incorrect), TrustPropRAG still improves EM over the setting without feedback across all feedback ratios. This is because individual feedback errors can be mitigated through trust propagation over the document relation graph, where relations among documents help mitigate the impact of noisy feedback signals.

The impact of feedback ratio. Figure 2 also shows EM as a function of the feedback ratio on MS MARCO with Gemini 2.5 Flash. Compared with the setting without feedback, TrustPropRAG improves sharply when only 10% of documents receive feedback, after which the improvement becomes more gradual. This indicates that a small portion of feedback is sufficient for trust propagation to produce reliable trust estimates across the document relation graph.

The impact of trust coefficient $\alpha$. Figure 3 shows EM and FP@5 as the trust coefficient $\alpha$ varies from 0 to 1. When $\alpha=0$, rescoring uses only the retrieval relevance score. As $\alpha$ increases from $0$, both EM and FP@5 improve, showing that incorporating trust scores helps promote documents that support the correct answer into the top-$k$ context. EM reaches its best value at $\alpha=0.6$, and remains stable between $0.5$ and $0.8$. However, when $\alpha$ is too large, the top-$k$ list tends to include documents with high trust scores but lower query relevance, leading to a slight decrease in EM. As TrustPropRAG is not sensitive to the exact choice of $\alpha$ within a range (e.g., between 0.5 and 0.8), we set $\alpha{=}0.6$ for the rest of the experiments.

Performance with different LLMs. We evaluate the performance of TrustPropRAG with a diverse set of proprietary and open-source LLMs of different model scales in Table 5. Since FP@5 depends only on retrieval and rescoring, it is unchanged across LLMs; therefore, we report EM as the main metric. We use MiniLM as the retriever and set $k=5$ and FB=30%. Table 5 shows that TrustPropRAG consistently outperforms VanillaRAG across all evaluated LLMs. The average EM improvement ranges from 0.17 to 0.23 across both proprietary models (GPT-4o-mini, GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Gemini 2.5 Pro) and smaller open-source models (Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, Mistral-7B-Instruct). Notably, TrustPropRAG still achieves an average EM gain of 0.23 with strong LLMs such as GPT-5 and Gemini 2.5 Pro. This suggests that improving the reliability of the retrieved context with trust propagation remains useful even for strong LLMs.

Computational cost. Table 6 reports the computational cost of TrustPropRAG, including offline graph construction and trust optimization, as well as query-time retrieval. The computational resources are detailed in Appendix A. Constructing the graph accounts for most of the offline cost, taking 578.3–1077.1 seconds. Given the constructed graph, trust score optimization is efficient, requiring only 0.3–0.4 seconds, indicating that trust propagation itself introduces negligible computational overhead. Both graph construction and trust optimization are performed offline and their costs are therefore amortized across future queries. At query time, retrieval takes 4.4–4.8 seconds and is shared by TrustPropRAG and the baselines. Beyond retrieval, TrustPropRAG only performs lightweight trust-aware rescoring using the precomputed trust scores, introducing limited additional query-time overhead.