mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Evaluating RAG-Fusion with RAGElo: an Automated Elo-based Framework

arXiv 2406.14783 ↗First posted 20 Jun 2024cs.IR cs.CLcited by 11

On the map: Retrieval-augmented generation → RAG robustness and adaptive retrieval

Abstract (arXiv)

Challenges in the automated evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) Question-Answering (QA) systems include hallucination problems in domain-specific knowledge and the lack of gold standard benchmarks for company internal tasks. This results in difficulties in evaluating RAG variations, like RAG-Fusion (RAGF), in the context of a product QA task at Infineon Technologies. To solve these problems, we propose a comprehensive evaluation framework, which leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate large datasets of synthetic queries based on real user queries and in-domain documents, uses LLM-as-a-judge to rate retrieved documents and answers, evaluates the quality of answers, and ranks different variants of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) agents with RAGElo's automated Elo-based competition. LLM-as-a-judge rating of a random sample of synthetic queries shows a moderate, positive correlation with domain expert scoring in relevance, accuracy, completeness, and precision. While RAGF outperformed RAG in Elo score, a significance analysis against expert annotations also shows that RAGF significantly outperforms RAG in completeness, but underperforms in precision. In addition, Infineon's RAGF assistant demonstrated slightly higher performance in document relevance based on MRR@5 scores. We find that RAGElo positively aligns with the preferences of human annotators, though due caution is still required. Finally, RAGF's approach leads to more complete answers based on expert annotations and better answers overall based on RAGElo's evaluation criteria.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in RAG robustness and adaptive retrieval, one of 15 directions in Retrieval-augmented generation. Builds on 12 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Jun 2024.

Builds on

12 of 54 references.

References · 12

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
  2. 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,874
  3. 2021BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generationcited by 719
  4. 2023ARES: An Automated Evaluation Framework for Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systemscited by 259
  5. 2022Promptagator: Few-shot Dense Retrieval From 8 Examplescited by 233
  6. 2021On Hallucination and Predictive Uncertainty in Conditional Language Generationcited by 176
  7. 2023Large language models can accurately predict searcher preferencescited by 129
  8. 2023Perspectives on Large Language Models for Relevance Judgmentcited by 84
  9. 2023InPars-v2: Large Language Models as Efficient Dataset Generators for Information Retrievalcited by 73
  10. 2023A Comprehensive Survey of Evaluation Techniques for Recommendation Systemscited by 12
  11. 2024A Comparison of Methods for Evaluating Generative IRcited by 11
  12. 2024FaaF: Facts as a Function for the evaluation of generated textcited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 4; 2026: 4.

11 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Augmenting Question Answering with A Hybrid RAG Approach
  2. 2024RAG-QA Arena: Evaluating Domain Robustness for Long-form Retrieval Augmented Question Answering
  3. 2024Evaluation of RAG Metrics for Question Answering in the Telecom Domain
  4. 2025Evaluation of retrieval-based QA on QUEST-LOFT
  5. 2025T2-RAGBench: Text-and-Table Benchmark for Evaluating Retrieval-Augmented Generation
  6. 2024GroUSE: A Benchmark to Evaluate Evaluators in Grounded Question Answering
  7. 2025Generating Diverse Q&A Benchmarks for RAG Evaluation with DataMorgana
  8. 2026Assessment of RAG and Fine-Tuning for Industrial Question-Answering-Applications