RAGProbe: An Automated Approach for Evaluating RAG Applications
On the map: Retrieval-augmented generation → RAG pipeline design and evaluation
Abstract (arXiv)
Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) is increasingly being used when building Generative AI applications. Evaluating these applications and RAG pipelines is mostly done manually, via a trial and error process. Automating evaluation of RAG pipelines requires overcoming challenges such as context misunderstanding, wrong format, incorrect specificity, and missing content. Prior works therefore focused on improving evaluation metrics as well as enhancing components within the pipeline using available question and answer datasets. However, they have not focused on 1) providing a schema for capturing different types of question-answer pairs or 2) creating a set of templates for generating question-answer pairs that can support automation of RAG pipeline evaluation. In this paper, we present a technique for generating variations in question-answer pairs to trigger failures in RAG pipelines. We validate 5 open-source RAG pipelines using 3 datasets. Our approach revealed the highest failure rates when prompts combine multiple questions: 91% for questions when spanning multiple documents and 78% for questions from a single document; indicating a need for developers to prioritise handling these combined questions. 60% failure rate was observed in academic domain dataset and 53% and 62% failure rates were observed in open-domain datasets. Our automated approach outperforms the existing state-of-the-art methods, by increasing the failure rate by 51% on average per dataset. Our work presents an automated approach for continuously monitoring the health of RAG pipelines, which can be integrated into existing CI/CD pipelines, allowing for improved quality.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in RAG pipeline design and evaluation, one of 15 directions in Retrieval-augmented generation. Builds on 17 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Sep 2024.
Builds on
17 of 35 references.
Closest ancestors · 6
Same direction, newest first
- 2024InspectorRAGet: An Introspection Platform for RAG Evaluation26 Apr
- 2024PipeRAG: Fast Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Algorithm-System Co-design8 Mar
- 2024MultiHop-RAG: Benchmarking Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Multi-Hop Queries27 Jan
- 2024The Power of Noise: Redefining Retrieval for RAG Systems26 Jan
- 2024Seven Failure Points When Engineering a Retrieval Augmented Generation System11 Jan
- 2023Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey18 Dec
Other references · 11
- 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 3,961
- 2016MS MARCO: A Human Generated MAchine Reading COmprehension Datasetcited by 1,591
- 2024RAFT: Adapting Language Model to Domain Specific RAGcited by 258
- 2020Generation-Augmented Retrieval for Open-domain Question Answeringcited by 186
- 2024RAG vs Fine-tuning: Pipelines, Tradeoffs, and a Case Study on Agriculturecited by 80
- 2024Automated Unit Test Improvement using Large Language Models at Metacited by 73
- 2023Large Language Models can Learn Rulescited by 66
- 2024CLAPNQ: Cohesive Long-form Answers from Passages in Natural Questions for RAG systemscited by 23
- 2023Evaluating LLMs on Document-Based QA: Exact Answer Selection and Numerical Extraction using Cogtale datasetcited by 11
- 2023Few-Shot Data Synthesis for Open Domain Multi-Hop Question Answeringcited by 9
- 2021Fine-tune the Entire RAG Architecture (including DPR retriever) for Question-Answeringcited by 7
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 6; 2026: 1.
7 papers.
- 2025The Great Nugget Recall: Automating Fact Extraction and RAG Evaluation with Large Language Modelscited by 24
- 2025Can LLMs Be Trusted for Evaluating RAG Systems? A Survey of Methods and Datasetscited by 7
- 2025RAGTrace: Understanding and Refining Retrieval-Generation Dynamics in Retrieval-Augmented Generationcited by 4
- 2025RAG Without the Lag: Interactive Debugging for Retrieval-Augmented Generation Pipelinescited by 3
- 2025A Vision for Geo-Temporal Deep Research Systems: Towards Comprehensive, Transparent, and Reproducible Geo-Temporal Information Synthesiscited by 2
- 2025TaskEval: Synthesised Evaluation for Foundation-Model Taskscited by 0
- 2026SourceBench: Can AI Answers Reference Quality Web Sources?cited by 0
- 2026SourceBench: Can AI Answers Reference Quality Web Sources?18 Feb 2026
- 2025TaskEval: Synthesised Evaluation for Foundation-Model Tasks4 Dec 2025
- 2025RAGTrace: Understanding and Refining Retrieval-Generation Dynamics in Retrieval-Augmented Generation8 Aug 2025
- 2025A Vision for Geo-Temporal Deep Research Systems: Towards Comprehensive, Transparent, and Reproducible Geo-Temporal Information Synthesis17 Jun 2025
- 2025Can LLMs Be Trusted for Evaluating RAG Systems? A Survey of Methods and Datasets28 Apr 2025
- 2025The Great Nugget Recall: Automating Fact Extraction and RAG Evaluation with Large Language Models21 Apr 2025
- 2025RAG Without the Lag: Interactive Debugging for Retrieval-Augmented Generation Pipelines18 Apr 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025RAGVUE: A Diagnostic View for Explainable and Automated Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation
- 2023ARES: An Automated Evaluation Framework for Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems
- 2025Generating Diverse Q&A Benchmarks for RAG Evaluation with DataMorgana
- 2025Classifying and Addressing the Diversity of Errors in Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems
- 2024Retrieval Augmented Generation Systems: Automatic Dataset Creation, Evaluation and Boolean Agent Setup
- 2025A Systematic Review of Key Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) Systems: Progress, Gaps, and Future Directions
- 2025MTRAG: A Multi-Turn Conversational Benchmark for Evaluating Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems
- 2023Ragas: Automated Evaluation of Retrieval Augmented Generation