# Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Domain-Specific Question Answering: A Case Study on Pittsburgh and CMU

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.13691 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.13691/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in RAG robustness and adaptive retrieval, one of 15 directions in Retrieval-augmented generation.
- Builds on 2 of its 5 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 20 Nov 2024.

## Placed in

- Retrieval-augmented generation / [RAG robustness and adaptive retrieval](https://mlsanity.com/rag/rag-robustness-and-adaptive-retrieval/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.05250/) (2016)
- [Mistral 7B](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06825/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Your RAG is Unfair: Exposing Fairness Vulnerabilities in Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Backdoor Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.22486/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We designed a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system to provide large language models with relevant documents for answering domain-specific questions about Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University (CMU). We extracted over 1,800 subpages using a greedy scraping strategy and employed a hybrid annotation process, combining manual and Mistral-generated question-answer pairs, achieving an inter-annotator agreement (IAA) score of 0.7625. Our RAG framework integrates BM25 and FAISS retrievers, enhanced with a reranker for improved document retrieval accuracy. Experimental results show that the RAG system significantly outperforms a non-RAG baseline, particularly in time-sensitive and complex queries, with an F1 score improvement from 5.45% to 42.21% and recall of 56.18%. This study demonstrates the potential of RAG systems in enhancing answer precision and relevance, while identifying areas for further optimization in document retrieval and model training.