Pith. sign in

REVIEW 11 cited by

Fact, Fetch, and Reason: A Unified Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.12941 v3 pith:VB623B6O submitted 2024-09-19 cs.CL

Satyapriya Krishna , Kalpesh Krishna , Anhad Mohananey , Steven Schwarcz , Adam Stambler , Shyam Upadhyay , Manaal Faruqui This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords llmsevaluationretrievalaccuracysystemsachievingcapabilitiesdataset
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant performance improvements across various cognitive tasks. An emerging application is using LLMs to enhance retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) capabilities. These systems require LLMs to understand user queries, retrieve relevant information, and synthesize coherent and accurate responses. Given the increasing real-world deployment of such systems, comprehensive evaluation becomes crucial. To this end, we propose FRAMES (Factuality, Retrieval, And reasoning MEasurement Set), a high-quality evaluation dataset designed to test LLMs' ability to provide factual responses, assess retrieval capabilities, and evaluate the reasoning required to generate final answers. While previous work has provided datasets and benchmarks to evaluate these abilities in isolation, FRAMES offers a unified framework that provides a clearer picture of LLM performance in end-to-end RAG scenarios. Our dataset comprises challenging multi-hop questions that require the integration of information from multiple sources. We present baseline results demonstrating that even state-of-the-art LLMs struggle with this task, achieving 0.40 accuracy with no retrieval. The accuracy is significantly improved with our proposed multi-step retrieval pipeline, achieving an accuracy of 0.66 (>50% improvement). We hope our work will help bridge evaluation gaps and assist in developing more robust and capable RAG systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 11 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. SimpleWikiSearch: A Clean Offline Wikipedia Environment for Agentic Search

    cs.IR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SimpleWikiSearch provides an explicit, runnable offline Wikipedia testbed—corpus, retrieval, and a three-tool agent contract—that makes LLM agentic-search evaluation reproducible and comparable.

  2. SFR-DeepResearch: Towards Effective Reinforcement Learning for Autonomously Reasoning Single Agents

    cs.AI 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 20B autonomously reasoning deep-research agent trained with synthetic-data RL reaches 28.7% on Humanity's Last Exam, exceeding several larger and proprietary baselines.

  3. Characterizing Deep Research: A Benchmark and Formal Definition

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Deep research is characterized by high search and reasoning intensity; the new LiveDRBench measures claim-level precision and recall, where the best current model scores 0.55 F1.

  4. MedBrowseComp: Benchmarking Medical Deep Research and Computer Use

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new benchmark of more than 1,000 multi-hop medical browsing questions shows that even the best deep-research and computer-use AI agents answer fewer than half correctly.

  5. MiniLongBench: The Low-cost Long Context Understanding Benchmark for Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    MiniLongBench, a 237-sample compression of LongBench, is claimed to reproduce model rankings with a 0.97 Spearman correlation at 4.5% of the evaluation cost.

  6. ManuSearch: Democratizing Deep Search in Large Language Models with a Transparent and Open Multi-Agent Framework

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    ManuSearch's three-agent design brings open-source LLMs to parity or better with proprietary web-search agents on three reasoning benchmarks, and ORION adds 310 long-tail EN/ZH questions for testing them.

  7. Engineering RAG Systems for Real-World Applications: Design, Development, and Evaluation

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A field study of five real-world RAG systems evaluated by 100 users, yielding user ratings and twelve engineering lessons.

  8. A Vision for Geo-Temporal Deep Research Systems: Towards Comprehensive, Transparent, and Reproducible Geo-Temporal Information Synthesis

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A research agenda calling for geo-temporal reasoning in deep research systems, with no experiments or system implementation.

  9. QwenLong-L1: Towards Long-Context Large Reasoning Models with Reinforcement Learning

    cs.CL 2025-05 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    QwenLong-L1-32B, trained with warm-up SFT plus curriculum-based long-context RL, reaches 70.7 average accuracy on seven DocQA benchmarks, though the evaluation gives it longer context than its proprietary baselines.

  10. Overcoming Vision Language Model Challenges in Diagram Understanding: A Proof-of-Concept with XML-Driven Large Language Models Solutions

    cs.SE 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A proof-of-concept showing that parsing diagram metadata from Office XML files into text lets LLMs answer diagram questions more reliably than feeding the rendered image to a VLM.

  11. Towards Agentic RAG with Deep Reasoning: A Survey of RAG-Reasoning Systems in LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    A survey organizing RAG-reasoning systems into three stages: reasoning-enhanced RAG, RAG-enhanced reasoning, and synergized agentic RAG-reasoning.

Pith tools