Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a crucial framework in natural language processing (NLP), improving factual consistency and reducing hallucinations by integrating external document retrieval with large language models (LLMs). However, the effectiveness of RAG is often hindered by coreferential complexity in retrieved documents, which can introduce ambiguity and interfere with in-context learning. In this study, we systematically investigate how entity coreference affects both document retrieval and generative performance in RAG-based systems, focusing on retrieval relevance, contextual understanding, and overall response quality. We demonstrate that coreference resolution enhances retrieval effectiveness and improves question-answering (QA) performance. Through comparative analysis of different pooling strategies in retrieval tasks, we find that mean pooling demonstrates superior context capturing ability after applying coreference resolution. In QA tasks, we discover that smaller models show greater improvement from the disambiguation process, likely due to their limited inherent capacity for handling referential ambiguity. With these findings, this study aims to provide a deeper understanding of the challenges posed by coreferential complexity in RAG, offering guidance for improving retrieval and generation in knowledge-intensive AI applications.

As the utilization of Large Language Models (LLMs) becomes more widespread, there is a growing demand for their ability to handle more complex and longer external knowledge across various use cases. Most existing evaluations of the open-ended question answering (ODQA) task, which necessitates the use of external knowledge, focus solely on whether the model provides the correct answer. However, even when LLMs answer correctly, they often fail to provide an obvious source for their responses. Therefore, it is necessary to jointly evaluate and verify the correctness of the answers and the appropriateness of grounded evidence in complex external contexts. To address this issue, we examine the phenomenon of discrepancies in abilities across two distinct tasks—QA and evidence selection—when performed simultaneously, from the perspective of task alignment. To verify LLMs’ task alignment, we introduce a verification framework and resources considering both semantic relevancy and structural diversity of the given long context knowledge. Through extensive experiments and detailed analysis, we provide insights into the task misalignment between QA and evidence selection. Our code and resources will be available upon acceptance.