# X-MADAM-RAG: Diagnosing and Handling Chinese-English Evidence Conflict in Retrieval-Augmented Generation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.12903 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.12903/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (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 13 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 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)

- [Knowledge Conflicts for LLMs: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.08319/) (2024)
- [FaithEval: Can Your Language Model Stay Faithful to Context, Even If "The Moon is Made of Marshmallows"](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.03727/) (2024)
- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Conflicting Evidence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.13079/) (2025)
- [RAGChecker: A Fine-grained Framework for Diagnosing Retrieval-Augmented Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.08067/) (2024)
- [FaithfulRAG: Fact-Level Conflict Modeling for Context-Faithful Retrieval-Augmented Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.08938/) (2025)
- [SemEval-2025 Task 3: Mu-SHROOM, the Multilingual Shared Task on Hallucinations and Related Observable Overgeneration Mistakes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.11975/) (2025)
- [Multilingual Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive Task](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.03616/) (2025)
- [XRAG: Cross-lingual Retrieval-Augmented Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.10089/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems may receive evidence that is not merely noisy but mutually contradictory. This issue becomes particularly salient in multilingual settings, where retrieved Chinese and English evidence may support incompatible answer candidates. We study this problem through X-RAMDocs-ZHEN, a controlled Chinese-English benchmark derived from RAMDocs for diagnosing evidence conflict in RAG. The benchmark contains 300 examples across six balanced conditions, including monolingual support, bilingual agreement, reversed conflict directions, and conflict with optional noise. We further examine X-MADAM-RAG, an interpretable pipeline that decomposes evidence handling into per-document candidate extraction, visible-evidence repair, deterministic candidate grouping, and conflict-aware aggregation. On the original controlled benchmark with Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, X-MADAM-RAG achieves 0.9667 strict accuracy and 0.9767 conflict-aware success, outperforming an evidence-normalized single-call baseline. However, a zero-call rule-only extractor reaches 1.0000 on the same benchmark, revealing strong template regularity. To probe this limitation, we construct a deterministic naturalized stress test that removes explicit answer templates while preserving candidate strings. On its 100-sample subset, rule-only extraction falls to 0.0000, but X-MADAM-RAG also drops to 0.3000 strict accuracy, below both naive and evidence-normalized baselines. A privileged oracle remains perfect, indicating that document-level extraction is the main bottleneck. These findings position X-RAMDocs-ZHEN and X-MADAM-RAG as diagnostic tools for controlled evidence conflict rather than as evidence of general hallucination detection or robustness to natural retrieval.