PreprintCited by 0Topic ModelingInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

RAGuard: A Novel Approach for in-context Safe Retrieval Augmented Generation for LLMs

Open access
Walker, Connor, Aslansefat, Koorosh, Akram, Mohammad Naveed, Papadopoulos, Yiannis·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Accuracy and safety are paramount in Offshore Wind (OSW) maintenance, yet conventional Large Language Models (LLMs) often fail when confronted with highly specialised or unexpected scenarios. We introduce RAGuard, an enhanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) framework that explicitly integrates safety-critical documents alongside technical manuals.By issuing parallel queries to two indices and allocating separate retrieval budgets for knowledge and safety, RAGuard guarantees both technical depth and safety coverage. We further develop a SafetyClamp extension that fetches a larger candidate pool, "hard-clamping" exact slot guarantees to safety. We evaluate across sparse (BM25), dense (Dense Passage Retrieval) and hybrid retrieval paradigms, measuring Technical Recall@K and Safety Recall@K. Both proposed extensions of RAG show an increase in Safety Recall@K from almost 0\% in RAG to more than 50\% in RAGuard, while maintaining Technical Recall above 60\%. These results demonstrate that RAGuard and SafetyClamp have the potential to establish a new standard for integrating safety assurance into LLM-powered decision support in critical maintenance contexts.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2509.03768

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Even with an extensive augmentation framework (RAGuard and SafetyClamp) around the LLM, the risks of omission in the LLM outputs remained despite being substantially reduced.

    “For example, in [19] they found that even with an extensive augmentation framework (RAGuard and SafetyClamp) around the LLM, the risks of omission in the LLM outputs remained despite being substantially reduced.”

    From Evaluating Metrics for Safety with LLM-as-Judges (2025) · cites this paper as [19]

    Section 5.3 (p. 13) reports that RAGuard and SafetyClamp improved safety-clause retrieval, yet even the best configurations omitted at least one required clause in over 90% of queries. That supports a reduced but persistent risk of omission in retrieved context, not a measured finding about omissions in LLM outputs. The Conclusion (p. 15) identifies the quality and safety of generated responses as future work. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [3]3. Habli, I., Lawton, T., Porter, Z.: Artificial intelligence in health care: Accountability and safety. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 98 (4), 251-256 (2020)
  2. [2]2. Demir, G., Moslem, S., Duleba, S.: Artificial intelligence in aviation safety: Systematic review and biometric analysis. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 17 (1), 279 (2024)
  3. [4]4. Izacard, G., Lewis, P., Lomeli, M., Hosseini, L., Petroni, F., Schick, T., Dwivedi-Yu, J., Joulin, A., Grave, E., Riedel, S.: Atlas: Few-shot learning with retrieval augmented language models. Journal of Machine Learning Research 24 (251), 1-43 (2023)
  4. [5]5. Jendoubi, C., Asad, A.: A survey of artificial intelligence applications in nuclear power plants. IoT 5 (4), 666-691 (2024)
  5. [7]7. Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., Küttler, H., Lewis, M., Yih, W.t., Rocktäschel, T., et al.: Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. vol. 33, pp. 9459-9474 (2020)

Authors
Walker, C., Aslansefat, K., Akram, M. N., & Papadopoulos, Y.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7080120408
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Keywords
retrieval-augmented generation, parallel retrieval, technical manuals, BM25 retrieval, dense passage retrieval, hybrid retrieval

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review