Self-Reflective RAG with Conformal Prediction for Reliable Question Answering in Low-Resource Domains

Authors

  • Payton Southee Department of Computer Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA. Author
  • Bonnie Mccullough Department of Computer Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA. Author
  • Heikki Holopainen School of Computing, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA. Author

Keywords:

retrieval-augmented generation, conformal prediction, self-reflection, low-resource domains, trustworthy question answering, uncertainty quantification, AI governance, socio-technical systems

Abstract

Retrieval-augmented generation has become a central architecture for question answering systems that must combine parametric language model knowledge with external evidence. In high-resource settings, these systems can achieve strong performance, but their reliability remains fragile in low-resource domains where evidence is sparse, terminologies are specialized, and errors carry material consequences. This paper examines a system-level approach that integrates self-reflective retrieval-augmented generation with conformal prediction to support reliable question answering in low-resource domains. Self-reflection allows the system to critique its own retrieval and generation behavior, identify gaps in evidence, reformulate queries, and abstain when confidence is insufficient. Conformal prediction contributes distribution-free reliability signals by producing calibrated sets of plausible answers or decisions, allowing institutions to reason about coverage and risk without relying solely on model-reported confidence. The paper argues that the combination is not merely a model improvement but an infrastructure and governance strategy. It discusses architectural trade-offs involving retrieval indices, calibration data, latency, human oversight, and domain adaptation. It also considers deployment in clinical, legal, disaster response, agricultural, and Indigenous language contexts, where data scarcity intersects with fairness, sovereignty, and policy concerns. The analysis concludes that reliable question answering in low-resource domains requires socio-technical design: self-reflection improves adaptive behavior, conformal prediction provides auditable uncertainty, and governance mechanisms determine whether these capabilities translate into trustworthy public and professional use.

References

1. Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., Küttler, H., Lewis, M., Yih, W., Rocktäschel, T., Riedel, S., & Kiela, D. (2020). Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 9459-9474.

2. Izacard, G., & Grave, E. (2021). Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering. Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 874-880.

3. Guu, K., Lee, K., Tung, Z., Pasupat, P., & Chang, M. (2020). REALM: Retrieval-augmented language model pre-training. Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, 3929-3938.

4. Karpukhin, V., Oğuz, B., Min, S., Lewis, P., Wu, L., Edunov, S., Chen, D., & Yih, W. (2020). Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 6769-6781.

5. Borgeaud, S., Mensch, A., Hoffmann, J., Cai, T., Rutherford, E., Millican, K., van den Driessche, G., Lespiau, J., Damoc, B., Clark, A., de Las Casas, D., Guy, A., Menick, J., Ring, R., Hennigan, T., Huang, S., Maggiore, L., Jones, C., Cassirer, A., ... Sifre, L. (2022). Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2206-2240.

6. Shinn, N., Cassano, F., Gopinath, A., Narasimhan, K., & Yao, S. (2023). Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 8634-8652.

7. Yao, S., Zhao, J., Yu, D., Du, N., Shafran, I., Narasimhan, K., & Cao, Y. (2023). ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Learning Representations.

8. Zhang, R. (2025, December). Uncertainty-Aware RAG: Trustworthy Generation and Risk Control. In 2025 5th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Big Data (AIBDF) (pp. 526-531). IEEE.

9. Angelopoulos, A. N., & Bates, S. (2021). A gentle introduction to conformal prediction and distribution-free uncertainty quantification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07511.

10. Vovk, V., Gammerman, A., & Shafer, G. (2005). Algorithmic learning in a random world. Springer.

11. Shafer, G., & Vovk, V. (2008). A tutorial on conformal prediction. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9, 371-421.

12. Romano, Y., Sesia, M., & Candès, E. J. (2020). Classification with valid and adaptive coverage. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 3581-3591.

13. Fisch, A., Schuster, T., Jaakkola, T., & Barzilay, R. (2022). Conformal prediction sets with limited false positives. Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, 6514-6532.

14. Kadavath, S., Conerly, T., Askell, A., Henighan, T., Drain, D., Perez, E., Schiefer, N., Hatfield-Dodds, Z., DasSarma, N., Tran-Johnson, E., Johnston, S., El-Showk, S., Jones, A., Elhage, N., Hume, T., Chen, A., Bai, Y., Bowman, S., Fort, S., ... Kaplan, J. (2022). Language models (mostly) know what they know. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05221.

15. Lin, S., Hilton, J., & Evans, O. (2022). Teaching models to express their uncertainty in words. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2022, 1-17.

16. Ji, Z., Lee, N., Frieske, R., Yu, T., Su, D., Xu, Y., Ishii, E., Bang, Y. J., Madotto, A., & Fung, P. (2023). Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(12), 1-38.

17. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610-623.

18. Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., Daumé III, H., & Crawford, K. (2021). Datasheets for datasets. Communications of the ACM, 64(12), 86-92.

19. Mitchell, M., Wu, S., Zaldivar, A., Barnes, P., Vasserman, L., Hutchinson, B., Spitzer, E., Raji, I. D., & Gebru, T. (2019). Model cards for model reporting. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 220-229.

20. Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., Smith-Loud, J., Theron, D., & Barnes, P. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 33-44.

Downloads

Published

2026-08-18