Cited by 155Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorTopic ModelingSoftware Engineering Research

Seven Failure Points When Engineering a Retrieval Augmented Generation System

Open access
Barnett, Scott, Kurniawan, Stefanus, Thudumu, Srikanth, Brannelly, Zach, Abdelrazek, Mohamed·2024·Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 3rd International Conference on AI Engineering - Software Engineering for AI

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1145/3644815.3644945

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”
  • 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).”
  • 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).”
  • 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].”

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
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