Benchmarking Large Language Models in Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Open accessAbstract
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is a promising approach for mitigating the hallucination of large language models (LLMs). However, existing research lacks rigorous evaluation of the impact of retrieval-augmented generation on different large language models, which make it challenging to identify the potential bottlenecks in the capabilities of RAG for different LLMs. In this paper, we systematically investigate the impact of Retrieval-Augmented Generation on large language models. We analyze the performance of different large language models in 4 fundamental abilities required for RAG, including noise robustness, negative rejection, information integration, and counterfactual robustness. To this end, we establish Retrieval-Augmented Generation Benchmark (RGB), a new corpus for RAG evaluation in both English and Chinese. RGB divides the instances within the benchmark into 4 separate testbeds based on the aforementioned fundamental abilities required to resolve the case. Then we evaluate 6 representative LLMs on RGB to diagnose the challenges of current LLMs when applying RAG. Evaluation reveals that while LLMs exhibit a certain degree of noise robustness, they still struggle significantly in terms of negative rejection, information integration, and dealing with false information. The aforementioned assessment outcomes indicate that there is still a considerable journey ahead to effectively apply RAG to LLMs.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
In the retrieval stage of RAG, the model is required to discern noise, irrelevant or fake information.
“However, RAG faces several challenges [30]: In the retrieval stage, the model is required to discern the noise, irrelevant or fake information.”
From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [30]
The Required abilities of RAG section says retrievers can return noisy documents and that LLMs must extract useful information despite that noise. It also identifies false information in external knowledge as a challenge. The paper places these abilities in the model’s handling of retrieved documents, rather than specifically in the retrieval stage. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the augmentation stage of RAG, integrating heterogeneous, independent, and even conflicting information presents challenges.
“In the augmentation stage, integrating heterogeneous, independent, and even conflicting information presents challenges.”
From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [30]
The Results on Information Integration testbed say that integrating information from multiple retrieved documents challenges RAG, particularly when documents contain noise. The Introduction also discusses factual errors in retrieved documents. The paper does not specifically characterize the information as heterogeneous and independent or locate the difficulty in a distinct augmentation stage. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRetrieving relevant and precise information from extensive corpora can be computationally demanding and resource-intensive, necessitating continuous updating and modification of knowledge databases to keep pace with the latest information.
“the task of retrieving relevant and precise information from extensive corpora can be computationally demanding and resourceintensive, necessitating continuous updating and modification of knowledge databases to keep pace with the latest information (Chen et al. 2023; Siriwardhana et al. 2023; Ram et al. 2023; Cheng et al. 2024).”
From Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Chen et al. 2023
The “Required abilities of RAG” section says retrievers are imperfect and may return noisy documents, supporting the difficulty of obtaining relevant information. The Introduction and Related work sections discuss outdated knowledge, but the paper does not say retrieval is computationally or resource-intensive or that knowledge databases require continuous updating and modification. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn RAG, the model needs to reject generation when insufficient information is given.
“Additionally, the model needs to reject generation when insufficient information is given.”
From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [30]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 43 · Cited by 455
Research works printed but not linked: 33
- Adlakha, V.; BehnamGhader, P.; Lu, X. H.; Meade, N.; and Reddy, S. 2023. Evaluating Correctness and Faithfulness of Instruction-Following Models for Question Answering. arXiv:2307.16877. · arXiv
- Bang, Y.; Cahyawijaya, S.; Lee, N.; Dai, W.; Su, D.; Wilie, B.; Lovenia, H.; Ji, Z.; Yu, T.; Chung, W.; Do, Q. V.; Xu, Y.; and Fung, P. 2023. A Multitask, Multilingual, Multi- modal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivity. arXiv:2302.04023. · arXiv
- Bian, N.; Liu, P.; Han, X.; Lin, H.; Lu, Y.; He, B.; and Sun, L. 2023. A Drop of Ink Makes a Million Think: The Spread of False Information in Large Language Models. arXiv:2305.04812. · arXiv
- Borgeaud, S.; Mensch, A.; Hoffmann, J.; Cai, T.; Ruther- ford, E.; Millican, K.; van den Driessche, G.; Lespiau, J.-B.; Damoc, B.; Clark, A.; de Las Casas, D.; Guy, A.; Menick, J.; Ring, R.; Hennigan, T.; Huang, S.; Maggiore, L.; Jones, C.; Cassirer, A.; Brock, A.; Paganini, M.; Irving, G.; Vinyals, O.; Osindero, S.; Simonyan, K.; Rae, J. W.; Elsen, E.; and Sifre, L. 2022. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. arXiv:2112.04426. · arXiv
- Cai, D.; Wang, Y.; Bi, W.; Tu, Z.; Liu, X.; Lam, W.; and Shi, S. 2019a. Skeleton-to-Response: Dialogue Genera- tion Guided by Retrieval Memory. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), 1219- 1228. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Association for Computa- tional Linguistics.
- Cai, D.; Wang, Y.; Bi, W.; Tu, Z.; Liu, X.; and Shi, S. 2019b. Retrieval-guided Dialogue Response Generation via a Matching-to-Generation Framework. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing and the 9th International Joint Confer- ence on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), 1866-1875. Hong Kong, China: Association for Computa- tional Linguistics.
- Cao, M.; Dong, Y.; Wu, J.; and Cheung, J. C. K. 2020. Fac- tual Error Correction for Abstractive Summarization Mod- els. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 6251- 6258. Online: Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Chang, Y.; Wang, X.; Wang, J.; Wu, Y.; Yang, L.; Zhu, K.; Chen, H.; Yi, X.; Wang, C.; Wang, Y.; Ye, W.; Zhang, Y.; Chang, Y.; Yu, P. S.; Yang, Q.; and Xie, X. 2023. A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models. arXiv:2307.03109. · arXiv
- Cui, J.; Li, Z.; Yan, Y.; Chen, B.; and Yuan, L. 2023. Chat- Law: Open-Source Legal Large Language Model with Inte- grated External Knowledge Bases. arXiv:2306.16092. · arXiv
- Drozdov, A.; Schärli, N.; Akyürek, E.; Scales, N.; Song, X.; Chen, X.; Bousquet, O.; and Zhou, D. 2023. Compo- sitional Semantic Parsing with Large Language Models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations.
- Guo, B.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Z.; Jiang, M.; Nie, J.; Ding, Y.; Yue, J.; and Wu, Y. 2023. How Close is ChatGPT to Hu- man Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detec- tion. arXiv:2301.07597. · arXiv
- Guu, K.; Lee, K.; Tung, Z.; Pasupat, P.; and Chang, M.-W. 2020. REALM: Retrieval-Augmented Language Model Pre- Training. In Proceedings of the 37th International Confer- ence on Machine Learning, ICML'20. JMLR.org.
- He, H.; Zhang, H.; and Roth, D. 2022. Rethinking with Retrieval: Faithful Large Language Model Inference. arXiv:2301.00303. · arXiv
- Hendrycks, D.; Burns, C.; Basart, S.; Zou, A.; Mazeika, M.; Song, D.; and Steinhardt, J. 2021. Measuring Massive Mul- titask Language Understanding. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
- Huang, Y.; Bai, Y.; Zhu, Z.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, J.; Su, T.; Liu, J.; Lv, C.; Zhang, Y.; Lei, J.; Fu, Y.; Sun, M.; and He, J. 2023. C-Eval: A Multi-Level Multi-Discipline Chinese Evaluation Suite for Foundation Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.08322. · arXiv
- Izacard, G.; and Grave, E. 2021. Leveraging Passage Re- trieval with Generative Models for Open Domain Ques- tion Answering. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, 874-880. Online: Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Izacard, G.; Lewis, P.; Lomeli, M.; Hosseini, L.; Petroni, F.; Schick, T.; Dwivedi-Yu, J.; Joulin, A.; Riedel, S.; and Grave, E. 2022. Atlas: Few-shot Learning with Retrieval Augmented Language Models. arXiv:2208.03299. · arXiv
- Ji, Z.; Lee, N.; Frieske, R.; Yu, T.; Su, D.; Xu, Y.; Ishii, E.; Bang, Y. J.; Madotto, A.; and Fung, P. 2023. Survey of Hal- lucination in Natural Language Generation. ACM Comput. Surv., 55(12).
- Lewis, P.; Perez, E.; Piktus, A.; Petroni, F.; Karpukhin, V.; Goyal, N.; Küttler, H.; Lewis, M.; Yih, W.-t.; Rocktäschel, T.; Riedel, S.; and Kiela, D. 2020. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks. In Pro- ceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'20. Red Hook, NY, USA: Curran Associates Inc. ISBN 9781713829546.
- Li, D.; Rawat, A. S.; Zaheer, M.; Wang, X.; Lukasik, M.; Veit, A.; Yu, F.; and Kumar, S. 2023a. Large Language Models with Controllable Working Memory. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, 1774-1793. Toronto, Canada: Association for Computa- tional Linguistics.
- Li, X.; Zhu, X.; Ma, Z.; Liu, X.; and Shah, S. 2023c. Are ChatGPT and GPT-4 General-Purpose Solvers for Financial Text Analytics? An Examination on Several Typical Tasks. arXiv:2305.05862. · arXiv
- Maynez, J.; Narayan, S.; Bohnet, B.; and McDonald, R. 2020. On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Sum- marization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1906-1919. Online: Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Peng, B.; Galley, M.; He, P.; Cheng, H.; Xie, Y.; Hu, Y.; Huang, Q.; Liden, L.; Yu, Z.; Chen, W.; and Gao, J. 2023. Check Your Facts and Try Again: Improving Large Lan- guage Models with External Knowledge and Automated Feedback. arXiv:2302.12813. · arXiv
- Qin, Y.; Liang, S.; Ye, Y.; Zhu, K.; Yan, L.; Lu, Y.; Lin, Y.; Cong, X.; Tang, X.; Qian, B.; Zhao, S.; Tian, R.; Xie, R.; Zhou, J.; Gerstein, M.; Li, D.; Liu, Z.; and Sun, M. 2023. ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs. arXiv:2307.16789. · arXiv
- Raunak, V.; Menezes, A.; and Junczys-Dowmunt, M. 2021. The Curious Case of Hallucinations in Neural Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 1172- 1183. Online: Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Ren, R.; Wang, Y.; Qu, Y.; Zhao, W. X.; Liu, J.; Tian, H.; Wu, H.; Wen, J.-R.; and Wang, H. 2023. Investigating the Factual Knowledge Boundary of Large Language Models with Retrieval Augmentation. arXiv:2307.11019. · arXiv
- Shi, W.; Min, S.; Yasunaga, M.; Seo, M.; James, R.; Lewis, M.; Zettlemoyer, L.; and tau Yih, W. 2023. RE- PLUG: Retrieval-Augmented Black-Box Language Models. arXiv:2301.12652. · arXiv
- Trivedi, H.; Balasubramanian, N.; Khot, T.; and Sabharwal, A. 2023. Interleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Rea- soning for Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Step Questions. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 10014-10037. Toronto, Canada: Association for Computa- tional Linguistics.
- Wang, A.; Singh, A.; Michael, J.; Hill, F.; Levy, O.; and Bowman, S. R. 2019b. GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understanding. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
- Xu, G.; Liu, J.; Yan, M.; Xu, H.; Si, J.; Zhou, Z.; Yi, P.; Gao, X.; Sang, J.; Zhang, R.; Zhang, J.; Peng, C.; Huang, F.; and Zhou, J. 2023a. CValues: Measuring the Values of Chi- nese Large Language Models from Safety to Responsibility. arXiv:2307.09705. · arXiv
- Xu, S.; Pang, L.; Shen, H.; Cheng, X.; and Chua, T.- S. 2023b. Search-in-the-Chain: Towards Accurate, Credi- ble and Traceable Large Language Models for Knowledge- intensive Tasks. arXiv:2304.14732. · arXiv
- Zhou, D.; Schärli, N.; Hou, L.; Wei, J.; Scales, N.; Wang, X.; Schuurmans, D.; Cui, C.; Bousquet, O.; Le, Q. V.; and Chi, E. H. 2023a. Least-to-Most Prompting Enables Com- plex Reasoning in Large Language Models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations.
- Zhou, S.; Alon, U.; Xu, F. F.; Jiang, Z.; and Neubig, G. 2023b. DocPrompting: Generating Code by Retrieving the Docs. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learn- ing Representations.
- Authors
- Chen, J., Lin, H., Han, X., & Sun, L.
- Affiliations
- Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 17754-17762
- ISSN
- 2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2309.01431
- OpenAlex
- W4393147129
- Cited by
- 455
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 137 · 2025: 213 · 2024: 104 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 133.98
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (YSBR-040)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Keywords
- retrieval-augmented generation, large language models, hallucination mitigation, noise robustness, information integration, misinformation
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
