# Diagnosing Evidence Utilization in Long-Context and Retrieval-Augmented Language Models under Matched Evidence Conditions

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.06758 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.06758/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 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 8 of its 19 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 4 Jun 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, 8 of 8)

- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.10084/) (2019)
- [SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.05250/) (2016)
- [Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.04906/) (2020)
- [HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.09600/) (2018)
- [Gemma 3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.19786/) (2025)
- [Constructing A Multi-hop QA Dataset for Comprehensive Evaluation of Reasoning Steps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.01060/) (2020)
- [BABILong: Testing the Limits of LLMs with Long Context Reasoning-in-a-Haystack](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.10149/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [On-Device Deep Research at 4B: Exposure Bounds Faithfulness, Retrieval Bounds Coverage](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.12257/) (2026)
- [What Would Fix This RAG Failure? Auditing Counterfactual Response with Paired Evidence Interventions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.08944/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Final-answer accuracy, retrieval recall, and citation overlap do not reveal how much answer advantage a long-context or retrieval-augmented language model actually recovers from supplied evidence. A model may answer from parametric priors, fail to use evidence that is present, or cite relevant text without converting it into the final answer. This paper introduces a four-condition diagnostic protocol for evidence-utilization evaluation under matched examples, models, prompts, and scoring rules. The protocol compares no-evidence, full-context, retrieved-evidence, and oracle-evidence reference conditions, and uses Oracle-Reference Normalized Context Utilization (ONCU) as a denominator-valid estimate of recovered oracle-reference evidence advantage. The empirical study evaluates five local open-weight models from the Qwen, Gemma, Llama, and Mistral families over Controlled-ONCU-safe16K, HotpotQA-ONCU, and 2WikiMultiHopQA-ONCU, comprising 18,000 ONCU-compatible predictions. Results show a task-dependent diagnostic pattern: controlled synthetic settings expose reduced recovery when the same evidence is embedded in long input rather than supplied compactly, while realistic multi-hop reconstructions show that full-context inputs outperform the tested retrieved inputs in denominator-free answer and evidence metrics, with ONCU supporting the same direction on oracle-improving groups. Sensitivity audits with stronger retrieval settings narrow some gaps but do not overturn the scoped interpretation. The main contribution is therefore not a single utilization ratio, but a matched diagnostic protocol that separates no-evidence answerability, oracle-evidence recoverability, full-context recovery, retrieval-conditioned recovery, denominator validity, and companion answer/evidence diagnostics.