Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems often fail to maintain contextual faithfulness, generating responses that conflict with the provided context. Existing methods attempt to improve faithfulness through external interventions, such as specialized prompting, decoding-based calibration, or preference optimization. However, since these approaches treat the LLM as a black box, they lack a reliable mechanism to assess how these conflicts occur. Consequently, they tend to be brittle, data-intensive, and agnostic to the model’s internal reasoning process. In this paper, we move beyond black-box interventions to analyze the model’s internal reasoning process. We discover that conflicting and aligned knowledge states are linearly separable in the model’s latent space, and contextual noise systematically increases the entropy of these representations. Based on these findings, we propose ProbeRAG, a novel framework for faithful RAG that operates in three stages: (i) fine-grained knowledge pruning to filter irrelevant context, (ii) latent conflict probing to identify hard conflicts in the model’s latent space, and (iii) conflict-aware attention to modulate attention heads toward faithful context integration. Extensive experiments demonstrate that ProbeRAG substantially improves both accuracy and contextual faithfulness. The related resources are available at https://github.com/XMUDeepLIT/ProbeRAG.

Graph-based Retrieval-Augmented Generation (GraphRAG) advances flat document retrieval by structuring knowledge as relational graphs, enabling more coherent and effective reasoning. However, applying it to specific domains like legal reasoning faces critical challenges. (i) Legal corpora are heterogeneous, containing multi-granular knowledge from cases, articles and interpretations. A flat knowledge graph cannot adequately differentiate between factual details, applied rules, and abstract principles, limiting accurate retrieval. (ii) Reliable legal judgment demands transparent, evidence-based reasoning. Traditional RAG passes retrieved context directly to an LLM without verification, resulting in opaque, error-prone reasoning. To this end, we propose LegalGraphRAG, a framework designed for reliable legal reasoning. Our approach introduces two core components: a hierarchical legal graph that hierarchically organizes legal sources to enable retrieval at appropriate abstraction levels, and a multi-agent system for reliable legal reasoning, where a Researcher retrieves candidate evidence, an Auditor rigorously verifies its validity against source documents, and an Adjudicator synthesizes the set of verified evidence to render a final judgment. Extensive experiments show that LegalGraphRAG achieves the state-of-the-art performance, outperforming existing GraphRAG baselines in accurate and trustworthy legal analysis. Our code, datasets and implementation details are available at https://github.com/XMUDeepLIT/LegalGraphRAG.