Deceptive Grounding: Entity Attribution Failure in Clinical Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation evaluation checks whether model claims are factually grounded in retrieved documents. It does not check whether retrieved evidence is attributed to the correct entity. A clinical RAG response can pass every automated check (zero hallucinations, near-perfect faithfulness, real citations) while presenting drug Y's clinical evidence as evidence about queried drug X. We term this deceptive grounding (DG): a failure invisible to faithfulness, hallucination, and citation checks because every claim is sourced from a real document, about the wrong entity. Using a controlled factorial benchmark across 13 models, we find DG rates spanning 8-87% at peak adversarial conditions. Medical and biomedical fine-tuned models reach up to 86.7%; domain specialization amplifies the failure rather than mitigating it. A controlled ablation identifies the mechanism: removing entity-specific clinical evidence from retrieved documents eliminates entity-attribution failure entirely, shifting all failures to confabulation. The two failure modes respond to the same trigger, taking different paths. Production measurement across 740 drug-disease pairs finds 7.8% overall DG in a deployed RAG system, rising to 13.6% for recently approved drugs. Entity-attribution verification (checking that cited evidence applies to the queried entity) detects DG at 97.0% precision and 98.7% DG recall (IPW-adjusted human gold standard); no existing framework implements it.
Submission history
Access Paper:

Current browse context:
References & Citations
BibTeX formatted citation


arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .
Verified source · arXiv.org
Reported by arXiv.org. Open the original for full media and formatting.
More in Funding
All newsSAGEAgent: A Self-Evolving Agent for Cost-Aware Modality Acquisition in Multimodal Survival Prediction
arXiv:2607.09521v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Does every cancer patient truly need a complete diagnostic workup for accurate survival prediction? In multimodal clinical oncology, diagnostic modalities follow a clinically mandated order of escalating burden -- from demographics…
Read at arXiv cs.AILongMedBench: Benchmarking Medical Agents for Long-Horizon Clinical Decision-Making
arXiv:2607.09322v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In this work, we introduce LongMedBench, a real-world EHR-based benchmark for long-horizon clinical decision-making. Prior evaluations of LLM-based medical agents have largely emphasized short-context knowledge QA and tool use. How…
Read at arXiv cs.AIL-MAD: A Systematic Evaluation of Multi-Agent Debate Structures in Legal Reasoning
arXiv:2607.09099v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While multi-agent debate (MAD) frameworks have shown significant potential in general reasoning, their effectiveness in highly structured, knowledge-heavy legal domains remains under-explored. In this work, we introduce the Legal M…
Read at arXiv cs.AIiLENS: Interpretable LLM-Guided Mixture-of-Experts for Neuroimaging Survival Analysis
arXiv:2607.08778v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is a complex neurodegenerative disorder that continues to impact millions of people worldwide. Predicting AD conversion during the prodromal stage remains critical for disease understanding and patient ca…
Read at arXiv cs.AI