# On the impact of retrieved content representations in RAG Pipelines

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.30790 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.30790/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in RAG robustness and adaptive retrieval, one of 15 directions in Retrieval-augmented generation.
- Builds on 20 of its 30 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 29 May 2026.

## Placed in

- Retrieval-augmented generation / [RAG robustness and adaptive retrieval](https://mlsanity.com/rag/rag-robustness-and-adaptive-retrieval/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 20 of 20)

- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [REALM: Retrieval-Augmented Language Model Pre-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.08909/) (2020)
- [Atlas: Few-shot Learning with Retrieval Augmented Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.03299/) (2022)
- [Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formatting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11324/) (2023)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [KILT: a Benchmark for Knowledge Intensive Language Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.02252/) (2020)
- [RAPTOR: Recursive Abstractive Processing for Tree-Organized Retrieval](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.18059/) (2024)
- [LLMLingua-2: Data Distillation for Efficient and Faithful Task-Agnostic Prompt Compression](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.12968/) (2024)
- [The Power of Noise: Redefining Retrieval for RAG Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.14887/) (2024)
- [RECOMP: Improving Retrieval-Augmented LMs with Compression and Selective Augmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.04408/) (2023)
- [xRAG: Extreme Context Compression for Retrieval-augmented Generation with One Token](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.13792/) (2024)
- [Sufficient Context: A New Lens on Retrieval Augmented Generation Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.06037/) (2024)
- [Blinded by Generated Contexts: How Language Models Merge Generated and Retrieved Contexts When Knowledge Conflicts?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.11911/) (2024)
- [HtmlRAG: HTML is Better Than Plain Text for Modeling Retrieved Knowledge in RAG Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.02959/) (2024)
- [The Distracting Effect: Understanding Irrelevant Passages in RAG](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.06914/) (2025)
- [AI-AI Bias: large language models favor communications generated by large language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.12856/) (2024)
- [Is Relevance Propagated from Retriever to Generator in RAG?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.15025/) (2025)
- [What External Knowledge is Preferred by LLMs? Characterizing and Exploring Chain of Evidence in Imperfect Context for Multi-Hop QA](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.12632/) (2024)
- [Relevance to Utility: Process-Supervised Rewrite for RAG](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.15577/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [A Shared Taste for Model-Written Text: The Generator-by-Selector Matrices of "AI-AI Bias" Show No Detectable Own-Model Premium](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.00369/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) supplements a language model's input with retrieved documents, yet most RAG pipelines inherit retrieval components designed for human readers. How retrieved content should be represented when the consumer is a large language model (LLM) rather than a human is less well understood. Recent work has proposed transformations of retrieved content and identified properties that affect generation, but each examines a single transformation or property in isolation, leaving open which features of a document's representation matter most. We address this with a controlled comparison: holding retrieval fixed, we vary only the representation of retrieved documents, comparing an original baseline against thirteen transformations spanning selection, summarisation, and reformulation, in query-dependent and query-independent variants. Across these fourteen representations we measure question-answering accuracy for four generators, and for each representation we also measure answer retention: whether a known answer-bearing document still supports its answer after transformation. We find that answer retention is the primary determinant of generator accuracy; notably, when retention is high, a representation's wording, structure, length, and query-dependence have limited effect. This suggests that accuracy gains attributed to specific mechanisms in prior work may be partly explained by how well those mechanisms preserve answer-bearing content, an attribution that cannot be settled without controlling for retention.