Methodological Framework for Quantifying Semantic Test Coverage in RAG Systems
On the map: Retrieval-augmented generation → RAG pipeline design and evaluation
Abstract (arXiv)
Reliably determining the performance of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems depends on comprehensive test questions. While a proliferation of evaluation frameworks for LLM-powered applications exists, current practices lack a systematic method to ensure these test sets adequately cover the underlying knowledge base, leaving developers with significant blind spots. To address this, we present a novel, applied methodology to quantify the semantic coverage of RAG test questions against their underlying documents. Our approach leverages existing technologies, including vector embeddings and clustering algorithms, to create a practical framework for validating test comprehensiveness. Our methodology embeds document chunks and test questions into a unified vector space, enabling the calculation of multiple coverage metrics: basic proximity, content-weighted coverage, and multi-topic question coverage. Furthermore, we incorporate outlier detection to filter irrelevant questions, allowing for the refinement of test sets. Experimental evidence from two distinct use cases demonstrates that our framework effectively quantifies test coverage, identifies specific content areas with inadequate representation, and provides concrete recommendations for generating new, high-value test questions. This work provides RAG developers with essential tools to build more robust test suites, thereby improving system reliability and extending to applications such as identifying misaligned documents.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in RAG pipeline design and evaluation, one of 15 directions in Retrieval-augmented generation. Builds on 8 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Aug 2025.
Builds on
8 of 20 references.
Closest ancestors · 4
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Towards a rigorous evaluation of RAG systems: the challenge of due diligence29 Jul
- 2025Can LLMs Be Trusted for Evaluating RAG Systems? A Survey of Methods and Datasets28 Apr
- 2024Human-Calibrated Automated Testing and Validation of Generative Language Models25 Nov
- 2023ARES: An Automated Evaluation Framework for Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems16 Nov
Other references · 4
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,975
- 2023Fine-Tuning or Retrieval? Comparing Knowledge Injection in LLMscited by 178
- 2025Harnessing the Universal Geometry of Embeddingscited by 55
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026RAG-TESTER: Automated End-to-End Testing of Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models
- 2026Testing Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems with Chunk Coverage
- 2025RAGSmith: A Framework for Finding the Optimal Composition of Retrieval-Augmented Generation Methods Across Datasets
- 2026A Systems-Level Analysis of Sensitivity, Robustness, and Stability in Retrieval-Augmented Generation
- 2024Do RAG Systems Cover What Matters? Evaluating and Optimizing Responses with Sub-Question Coverage
- 2025A Systematic Review of Key Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) Systems: Progress, Gaps, and Future Directions
- 2024Understanding the Fundamental Design Decisions of Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems
- 2024Automated Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Language Models with Task-Specific Exam Generation