Seven Failure Points When Engineering a Retrieval Augmented Generation System
Open accessAbstract
Software engineers are increasingly adding semantic search capabilities to applications using a strategy known as Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG). A RAG system involves finding documents that semantically match a query and then passing the documents to a large language model (LLM) such as ChatGPT to extract the right answer using an LLM. RAG systems aim to: a) reduce the problem of hallucinated responses from LLMs, b) link sources/references to generated responses, and c) remove the need for annotating documents with meta-data. However, RAG systems suffer from limitations inherent to information retrieval systems and from reliance on LLMs. In this paper, we present an experience report on the failure points of RAG systems from three case studies from separate domains: research, education, and biomedical. We share the lessons learned and present 7 failure points to consider when designing a RAG system. The two key takeaways arising from our work are: 1) validation of a RAG system is only feasible during operation, and 2) the robustness of a RAG system evolves rather than designed in at the start. We conclude with a list of potential research directions on RAG systems for the software engineering community.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Evaluations of general purpose RAG systems often assume that all retrievable documents contain true information and are authoritative and applicable, an assumption that is not true in the legal setting.
“Evaluations of general purpose RAG systems often assume that all retrievable documents (1) contain true information and (2) are authoritative and applicable, an assumption that is not true in the legal setting (Barnett et al. 2024; Chen et al. 2024).”
From Hallucination‐Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading <scp>AI</scp> Legal Research Tools (2025) · cites this paper as Barnett et al. 2024
RAG is unlikely to fully solve the hallucination problem.
“There are several reasons that RAG is unlikely to fully solve the hallucination problem (Barnett et al. 2024).”
From Hallucination‐Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading <scp>AI</scp> Legal Research Tools (2025) · cites this paper as Barnett et al. 2024
Inapplicable authority errors are uniquely important and prevalent in the legal setting, and have not been explored as thoroughly in prior literature.
“This kind of error is uniquely important and prevalent in the legal setting, and has not been explored as thoroughly in prior literature (Barnett et al. 2024; Gao et al. 2024).”
From Hallucination‐Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading <scp>AI</scp> Legal Research Tools (2025) · cites this paper as Barnett et al. 2024
Despite being designed to mitigate LLM hallucinations, retrieval-augmented LLMs can still produce hallucinations.
“Despite being designed to mitigate LLM hallucinations, retrieval-augmented LLMs can still produce hallucinations [16].”
From A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions (2025) · cites this paper as [16]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 8 · Cited by 155
- Authors
- Barnett, S., Kurniawan, S., Thudumu, S., Brannelly, Z., & Abdelrazek, M.
- Affiliations
- Deakin University (AU)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 3rd International Conference on AI Engineering - Software Engineering for AI
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2024-04-14
- Pages
- 194-199
- OpenAlex
- W4399530612
- Cited by
- 155
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 73 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 18
- FWCI
- 58.89
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- IEEE/ACM International Conference on AI Engineering – Software Engineering for AI (CAIN) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Keywords
- retrieval-augmented generation, semantic search, large language models, hallucinations, information retrieval, system robustness, system validation, failure points, software engineering, biomedical information retrieval, educational software, research applications
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review