GaRAGe: A Benchmark with Grounding Annotations for RAG Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.07671v1
• Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 11:47:03 GMT
• Title: GaRAGe: A Benchmark with Grounding Annotations for RAG Evaluation
• Authors: Ionut-Teodor Sorodoc, Leonardo F. R. Ribeiro, Rexhina Blloshmi, Christopher Davis, Adrià de Gispert,
• Abstract summary: GaRAGe is a large RAG benchmark with human-curated long-form answers and annotations of each grounding passage.<n>Our benchmark contains 2366 questions of diverse complexity, dynamism, and topics, and includes over 35K annotated passages retrieved from both private document sets and the Web.
• Score: 14.494723040096902
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: We present GaRAGe, a large RAG benchmark with human-curated long-form answers and annotations of each grounding passage, allowing a fine-grained evaluation of whether LLMs can identify relevant grounding when generating RAG answers. Our benchmark contains 2366 questions of diverse complexity, dynamism, and topics, and includes over 35K annotated passages retrieved from both private document sets and the Web, to reflect real-world RAG use cases. This makes it an ideal test bed to evaluate an LLM's ability to identify only the relevant information necessary to compose a response, or provide a deflective response when there is insufficient information. Evaluations of multiple state-of-the-art LLMs on GaRAGe show that the models tend to over-summarise rather than (a) ground their answers strictly on the annotated relevant passages (reaching at most a Relevance-Aware Factuality Score of 60%), or (b) deflect when no relevant grounding is available (reaching at most 31% true positive rate in deflections). The F1 in attribution to relevant sources is at most 58.9%, and we show that performance is particularly reduced when answering time-sensitive questions and when having to draw knowledge from sparser private grounding sources.

Related papers

• Towards Agentic RAG with Deep Reasoning: A Survey of RAG-Reasoning Systems in LLMs [69.10441885629787]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) lifts the factuality of Large Language Models (LLMs) by injecting external knowledge.<n>It falls short on problems that demand multi-step inference; conversely, purely reasoning-oriented approaches often hallucinate or mis-ground facts.<n>This survey synthesizes both strands under a unified reasoning-retrieval perspective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-13T03:29:41Z)
• Question Decomposition for Retrieval-Augmented Generation [2.6409776648054764]
  We propose a RAG pipeline that incorporates question decomposition into sub-questions.<n>We show that question decomposition effectively assembles complementary documents, while reranking reduces noise.<n>Although reranking itself is standard, we show that pairing an off-the-shelf cross-encoder reranker with LLM-driven question decomposition bridges the retrieval gap on multi-hop questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-01T01:01:54Z)
• ESGenius: Benchmarking LLMs on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and Sustainability Knowledge [53.18163869901266]
  ESGenius is a benchmark for evaluating and enhancing the proficiency of Large Language Models (LLMs) in Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)<n> ESGenius comprises two key components: ESGenius-QA and ESGenius-Corpus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T13:19:09Z)
• Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Conflicting Evidence [57.66282463340297]
  Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly employing retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to improve the factuality of their responses.<n>In practice, these systems often need to handle ambiguous user queries and potentially conflicting information from multiple sources.<n>We propose RAMDocs (Retrieval with Ambiguity and Misinformation in Documents), a new dataset that simulates complex and realistic scenarios for conflicting evidence for a user query.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-17T16:46:11Z)
• Do RAG Systems Cover What Matters? Evaluating and Optimizing Responses with Sub-Question Coverage [74.70255719194819]
  We introduce a novel framework based on sub-question coverage, which measures how well a RAG system addresses different facets of a question. We use this framework to evaluate three commercial generative answer engines: You.com, Perplexity AI, and Bing Chat. We find that while all answer engines cover core sub-questions more often than background or follow-up ones, they still miss around 50% of core sub-questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-20T22:59:34Z)
• ELOQ: Resources for Enhancing LLM Detection of Out-of-Scope Questions [52.33835101586687]
  We study out-of-scope questions, where the retrieved document appears semantically similar to the question but lacks the necessary information to answer it.<n>We propose a guided hallucination-based approach ELOQ to automatically generate a diverse set of out-of-scope questions from post-cutoff documents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T16:11:29Z)
• W-RAG: Weakly Supervised Dense Retrieval in RAG for Open-domain Question Answering [28.79851078451609]
  We propose W-RAG, a method that draws weak training signals from the downstream task and fine-tunes the retriever to prioritize passages that most benefit the task.<n>We conduct comprehensive experiments across four publicly available OpenQA datasets to demonstrate that our approach enhances both retrieval and OpenQA performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-15T22:34:44Z)
• RAGEval: Scenario Specific RAG Evaluation Dataset Generation Framework [66.93260816493553]
  This paper introduces RAGEval, a framework designed to assess RAG systems across diverse scenarios.<n>With a focus on factual accuracy, we propose three novel metrics: Completeness, Hallucination, and Irrelevance.<n> 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)
• RAG-QA Arena: Evaluating Domain Robustness for Long-form Retrieval Augmented Question Answering [61.19126689470398]
  Long-form RobustQA (LFRQA) is a new dataset covering 26K queries and large corpora across seven different domains. We show via experiments that RAG-QA Arena and human judgments on answer quality are highly correlated. Only 41.3% of the most competitive LLM's answers are preferred to LFRQA's answers, demonstrating RAG-QA Arena as a challenging evaluation platform for future research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-19T03:02:51Z)
• DIRAS: Efficient LLM Annotation of Document Relevance in Retrieval Augmented Generation [37.823892101215684]
  Domain-specific queries usually need nuanced definitions of relevance beyond shallow semantic relevance.<n>Human or GPT-4 annotation is costly and cannot cover all (query, document) pairs.<n>We propose DIRAS (Domain-specific Information Retrieval with Scalability), a manual-annotation-free schema.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T10:04:09Z)
• Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Critique through Self-Reflection [74.51523859064802]
  We introduce a new framework called Self-Reflective Retrieval-Augmented Generation (Self-RAG) Self-RAG enhances an LM's quality and factuality through retrieval and self-reflection. It significantly outperforms state-of-the-art LLMs and retrieval-augmented models on a diverse set of tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T18:18:32Z)

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.