GRAMMAR: Grounded and Modular Methodology for Assessment of Closed-Domain Retrieval-Augmented Language Model

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.19232v5
• Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 05:16:30 GMT
• Title: GRAMMAR: Grounded and Modular Methodology for Assessment of Closed-Domain Retrieval-Augmented Language Model
• Authors: Xinzhe Li, Ming Liu, Shang Gao,
• Abstract summary: Retrieval-augmented Generation (RAG) systems have been actively studied and deployed across various industries to query on domain-specific knowledge base. evaluating these systems presents unique challenges due to the scarcity of domain-specific queries and corresponding ground truths. We introduce GRAMMAR, an evaluation framework comprising two key elements: 1) a data generation process that leverages relational databases and LLMs to efficiently produce scalable query-answer pairs for evaluation; and 2) an evaluation framework that differentiates knowledge gaps from robustness and enables the identification of defective modules.
• Score: 6.106667677504318
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Retrieval-augmented Generation (RAG) systems have been actively studied and deployed across various industries to query on domain-specific knowledge base. However, evaluating these systems presents unique challenges due to the scarcity of domain-specific queries and corresponding ground truths, as well as a lack of systematic approaches to diagnosing the cause of failure cases -- whether they stem from knowledge deficits or issues related to system robustness. To address these challenges, we introduce GRAMMAR (GRounded And Modular Methodology for Assessment of RAG), an evaluation framework comprising two key elements: 1) a data generation process that leverages relational databases and LLMs to efficiently produce scalable query-answer pairs for evaluation. This method facilitates the separation of query logic from linguistic variations, enabling the testing of hypotheses related to non-robust textual forms; and 2) an evaluation framework that differentiates knowledge gaps from robustness and enables the identification of defective modules. Our empirical results underscore the limitations of current reference-free evaluation approaches and the reliability of GRAMMAR to accurately identify model vulnerabilities. For implementation details, refer to our GitHub repository: https://github.com/xinzhel/grammar.

Related papers

• CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward [50.97588334916863]
  We develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward.<n>It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types.<n>We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T17:55:24Z)
• Divide-Then-Align: Honest Alignment based on the Knowledge Boundary of RAG [51.120170062795566]
  We propose Divide-Then-Align (DTA) to endow RAG systems with the ability to respond with "I don't know" when the query is out of the knowledge boundary.<n>DTA balances accuracy with appropriate abstention, enhancing the reliability and trustworthiness of retrieval-augmented systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T08:21:21Z)
• The Great Nugget Recall: Automating Fact Extraction and RAG Evaluation with Large Language Models [53.12387628636912]
  We propose an automatic evaluation framework that is validated against human annotations. This approach was originally developed for the TREC Question Answering (QA) Track in 2003. We observe strong agreement at the run level between scores derived from fully automatic nugget evaluation and human-based variants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T12:55:06Z)
• AlignRAG: Leveraging Critique Learning for Evidence-Sensitive Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning [61.28113271728859]
  RAG has become a widely adopted paradigm for enabling knowledge-grounded large language models (LLMs)<n>Standard RAG pipelines often fail to ensure that model reasoning remains consistent with the evidence retrieved, leading to factual inconsistencies or unsupported conclusions.<n>In this work, we reinterpret RAG as Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning and identify a central but underexplored problem: textitReasoning Misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T04:56:47Z)
• SEOE: A Scalable and Reliable Semantic Evaluation Framework for Open Domain Event Detection [70.23196257213829]
  We propose a scalable and reliable Semantic-level Evaluation framework for Open domain Event detection. Our proposed framework first constructs a scalable evaluation benchmark that currently includes 564 event types covering 7 major domains. We then leverage large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluation agents to compute a semantic F1-score, incorporating fine-grained definitions of semantically similar labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T09:37:05Z)
• LLMs in Software Security: A Survey of Vulnerability Detection Techniques and Insights [12.424610893030353]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are emerging as transformative tools for software vulnerability detection. This paper provides a detailed survey of LLMs in vulnerability detection. We address challenges such as cross-language vulnerability detection, multimodal data integration, and repository-level analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T21:33:38Z)
• Semantic Tokens in Retrieval Augmented Generation [0.0]
  I propose a novel Comparative RAG system that introduces an evaluator module to bridge the gap between probabilistic RAG systems and deterministically verifiable responses. This framework paves the way for more reliable and scalable question-answering applications in domains requiring high precision and verifiability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-03T16:52:06Z)
• Human-Calibrated Automated Testing and Validation of Generative Language Models [3.2855317710497633]
  This paper introduces a comprehensive framework for the evaluation and validation of generative language models (GLMs) It focuses on Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems deployed in high-stakes domains such as banking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-25T13:53:36Z)
• Unsupervised Model Diagnosis [49.36194740479798]
  This paper proposes Unsupervised Model Diagnosis (UMO) to produce semantic counterfactual explanations without any user guidance. Our approach identifies and visualizes changes in semantics, and then matches these changes to attributes from wide-ranging text sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T17:59:03Z)
• RAGEval: Scenario Specific RAG Evaluation Dataset Generation Framework [69.4501863547618]
  This paper introduces RAGEval, a framework designed to assess RAG systems across diverse scenarios. With a focus on factual accuracy, we propose three novel metrics Completeness, Hallucination, and Irrelevance. Experimental results show that RAGEval outperforms zero-shot and one-shot methods in terms of clarity, safety, conformity, and richness of generated samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T13:35:11Z)
• Mindful-RAG: A Study of Points of Failure in Retrieval Augmented Generation [11.471919529192048]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are proficient at generating coherent and contextually relevant text. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems mitigate this by incorporating external knowledge sources, such as structured knowledge graphs (KGs) Our study investigates this dilemma by analyzing error patterns in existing KG-based RAG methods and identifying eight critical failure points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T23:50:07Z)
• SKADA-Bench: Benchmarking Unsupervised Domain Adaptation Methods with Realistic Validation [55.87169702896249]
  Unsupervised Domain Adaptation (DA) consists of adapting a model trained on a labeled source domain to perform well on an unlabeled target domain with some data distribution shift. We propose a framework to evaluate DA methods and present a fair evaluation of existing shallow algorithms, including reweighting, mapping, and subspace alignment. Our benchmark highlights the importance of realistic validation and provides practical guidance for real-life applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T12:52:29Z)
• Evaluating the Efficacy of Foundational Models: Advancing Benchmarking Practices to Enhance Fine-Tuning Decision-Making [1.3812010983144802]
  This study evaluates large language models (LLMs) across diverse domains, including cybersecurity, medicine, and finance. The results indicate that model size and types of prompts used for inference significantly influenced response length and quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T20:52:31Z)
• A Comprehensive Library for Benchmarking Multi-class Visual Anomaly Detection [52.228708947607636]
  This paper introduces a comprehensive visual anomaly detection benchmark, ADer, which is a modular framework for new methods. The benchmark includes multiple datasets from industrial and medical domains, implementing fifteen state-of-the-art methods and nine comprehensive metrics. We objectively reveal the strengths and weaknesses of different methods and provide insights into the challenges and future directions of multi-class visual anomaly detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T13:40:07Z)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)
• A Call to Reflect on Evaluation Practices for Failure Detection in Image Classification [0.491574468325115]
  We present a large-scale empirical study for the first time enabling benchmarking confidence scoring functions. The revelation of a simple softmax response baseline as the overall best performing method underlines the drastic shortcomings of current evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-28T12:25:27Z)
• Metrics reloaded: Recommendations for image analysis validation [59.60445111432934]
  Metrics Reloaded is a comprehensive framework guiding researchers in the problem-aware selection of metrics. The framework was developed in a multi-stage Delphi process and is based on the novel concept of a problem fingerprint. Based on the problem fingerprint, users are guided through the process of choosing and applying appropriate validation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-03T15:56:51Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.