GroundLM Workshop · EMNLP 2026 · Budapest

Does Retrieval Augmented Generation Collapse When It Retrieves AI-Generated Documents?

Riddhimaan Senapati1 Gregory Druck2 Fabeha Fatima1 Ozel Yilmazel1 Rati Rastogi1 Chang Zeng1 Ethan Smith2
1University of Massachusetts Amherst    2Graphite
Diagram of the three contamination simulations: Replace-All, Replace-One and Search
The three contamination simulations. From top to bottom: Replace-All (the entire context is replaced with generated documents after round 1), Replace-One (one reference is replaced per round), and Search (self-generated documents are gradually added to the question's reference pool and compete during retrieval).
Abstract

Collapse at inference time, with no retraining

AI-generated text now constitutes a substantial and growing fraction of indexed web content, creating a feedback loop in which AI assistants may retrieve and condition on their own prior generations. Prior work shows that recursive training on model generations causes model collapse: a loss of output diversity and distributional drift. We ask whether a similar collapse emerges at inference time, when LLMs retrieve their own generations via RAG without any parameter updates.

We measure collapse as the progressive convergence of responses to a narrow set across recursive retrieval rounds. Across three contamination simulations and four open-source LLMs, collapse is rapid and consistent under direct contamination, but partial and model-dependent under competitive retrieval. Collapse can also degrade downstream accuracy on factual multi-hop QA, though the effect is inconsistent across models. We further show that the self-generated documents we introduce are cited far above their share of the context, an effect that is not fully explained by document quality, writing style, AI authorship, or self-preference. Finally, we propose and evaluate mitigation strategies at both the retrieval and generation stages, none of which reliably prevent collapse. As AI-generated content continues to populate the open web, collapse-resistant retrieval design is necessary for trustworthy AI assistants.

Key findings

What we found

66.8%

Collapse is fast under direct contamination

of entity-comparison questions are fully collapsed by the final round under Replace-All (Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct), up from 28.2% at the start.

2.2×

Self-generated references are over-cited

At round 1 they are 12.0% of the context but receive 26.5% of citations under Replace-One.

±F1

Accuracy effects depend on the model

On HotpotQA only Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct declines significantly; Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3 improves as answers converge on a consensus.

0 / 4

No mitigation reliably prevents it

Paraphrasing and agentic retrieval slow collapse, re-ranking is not effective, and GEPA prompt optimization did not beat the baseline.

Method

A recursive retrieval loop

Each round, the model retrieves documents, answers the question 10 times, and its answers are rewritten into web-style articles (by Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct) that re-enter the retrieval pool. Questions are simulated independently, following the design of Druck and Smith (2026).

Replace-All10 rounds
The entire context is replaced with AI-generated documents after the first round, isolating collapse driven by the retrieval loop itself.
Replace-One20 rounds
One original reference per round is replaced with a self-generated document, so synthetic content accumulates gradually.
Search30 rounds
One self-generated document per round is added to the question's pool of original references, so self-generated and original documents compete during retrieval.
Agentic RAG30 rounds
Like Search, but the model decides what to retrieve by issuing its own retrieve(query) calls before answering.

Datasets

400 non-factoid entity-comparison questions (e.g. “What are the best restaurants in the Bay Area?”) and the first 1400 HotpotQA dev questions.

Models

Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct, Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3, Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B, all at temperature 0.7.

Metrics

Pairwise ROUGE-L, unique entities, collapse rate (every response mentions the same set of canonical entities), and token-level F1 on HotpotQA.

Results

Answers converge as the context fills with AI text

Unique entities per round
(a) Unique entities per round
Collapse by simulation
(b) Collapse by simulation
Pairwise ROUGE-L per round
(c) Pairwise ROUGE-L per round

With Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct, unique entities fall and responses grow more similar as the context becomes AI-generated. Collapse is rapid and consistent under direct contamination (Replace-All, Replace-One), but partial under competitive retrieval (Search), even though Search runs for 30 rounds versus 10 and 20.

SimulationCollapsed at startCollapsed at end95% Wilson CI
Replace-All28.2%66.8%[62.0, 71.2]
Replace-One29.8%59.8%[54.9, 64.4]
Search31.5%48.0%[43.1, 52.9]

The same pattern holds for Llama-3.1-8B, Mistral-7B and DeepSeek-R1-7B, most clearly under direct contamination.

HotpotQA: the accuracy effect depends on the model

HotpotQA answers are short factual spans, so response diversity is low to begin with and there is little room for collapse to cause an accuracy drop.

ΔF1 (first → final round)Replace-AllReplace-OneSearch
Qwen2.5-14B−0.018−0.024−0.018
Mistral-7B+0.062+0.044+0.058
Llama-3.1-8B+0.007+0.008+0.016
DeepSeek-R1-7B+0.012−0.002+0.011

Orange: significant decline. Green: significant improvement. Grey: 95% bootstrap CI (over 1400 questions) includes zero. Mistral's gain is consistent with collapse onto a consensus answer that raises token overlap for a low-baseline model; with 1400 questions the nulls are small effects, not a lack of statistical power.

Forest plot of the change in F1 per model and simulation
Change in token-level F1 between the first and final rounds per model, with 95% bootstrap CIs.
Analysis

What causes RAG collapse?

An answer-derived preference: the model conditions disproportionately on documents derived from model answers. AI authorship, writing style, answer quality and self-preference do not account for it.

Evidence

Collapse begins before full contamination

Under Replace-One, unique words fall from 64.0 to 51.3 between rounds 1 and 9, while roughly half of the context is still original references.

Self-generated references are over-cited

At round 1 they are 12.0% of the context but receive 26.5% of citations under Replace-One (ratio 2.2), and 14.8% vs 24.0% under Search (ratio 1.6). A reference is credited only when regenerating the answer without it changes the answer. The effect survives a query-alignment control and replicates across all four models and the agentic setting.

Ruled-out explanations

✕

AI authorship

About 30% of the original references are themselves AI-written (GPTZero), yet they are cited far less than self-generated ones.

self-generated0.281
AI-written0.123
human-written0.078
✕

Writing style

Paraphrasing the original references into AI style before round 1 slows collapse but does not stop it: stylistic uniformity accelerates collapse but is not its sole cause.

✕

Reference quality

Among references scored 5/5 on directness, organization and relevance, self-generated ones are still cited 2.1× as often. Controlling for eight quality dimensions, the self-generation effect is +0.154 (p < 0.001).

✕

Self-preference

When the fed-back documents are built from a different model's answers, collapse persists at a rate statistically indistinguishable from Qwen's own answers.

End-round collapse rate by source model
End-round collapse when the fed-back documents come from Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct's own answers vs. other models' answers.
Mitigations

Collapse is robust to every mitigation we tried

Re-ranking

Penalize likely-AI documents between retrieval and generation:

s′ = s · (1 − λ · PAI(D))

Even with an oracle detector it fails, because re-ranking can only reorder what retrieval returns. By the final round the oracle retrieves on average only one original document out of ten.

AI reference percentage per round with re-ranking
AI reference % per round with re-ranking (HotpotQA, λ = 0.7, Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct).

Agentic RAG

Ends at 27.2% collapsed vs 48.0–66.8% for the baselines, but it also starts much lower (7.2%) and makes about 1.01 tool calls per round, so we can't attribute the gain to iterative retrieval rather than its richer system prompt. Promising, but prompt-sensitive.

Paraphrasing & GEPA

Paraphrasing slows recursive self-reinforcement without preventing it. GEPA prompt optimization converged immediately: no candidate improved on the baseline prompt.

Agentic RAG versus baselines, unique entities per round
Agentic RAG preserves more unique entities than the three baseline simulations.
Takeaway. Preventing collapse will likely require filtering self-generated references before retrieval and directly countering the answer-derived preference.
Citation

BibTeX

@inproceedings{senapati2026ragcollapse,
  title     = {Does Retrieval Augmented Generation Collapse When It Retrieves AI-Generated Documents?},
  author    = {Senapati, Riddhimaan and Druck, Gregory and Fatima, Fabeha and Yilmazel, Ozel and Rastogi, Rati and Zeng, Chang and Smith, Ethan},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the Grounding Language Models (GroundLM) Workshop at EMNLP 2026},
  year      = {2026},
  url       = {https://github.com/rag-collapse/RAG-Collapse}
}