CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 13Topic ModelingInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

Fact, Fetch, and Reason: A Unified Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Open access
Krishna, Satyapriya, Krishna, Kalpesh, Mohananey, Anhad, Schwarcz, Steven, Stambler, Adam, Upadhyay, Shyam, Faruqui, Manaal·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2409.12941arXiv 2409.12941
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant performance improvements across various cognitive tasks. An emerging application is using LLMs to enhance retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) capabilities. These systems require LLMs to understand user queries, retrieve relevant information, and synthesize coherent and accurate responses. Given the increasing real-world deployment of such systems, comprehensive evaluation becomes crucial. To this end, we propose FRAMES (Factuality, Retrieval, And reasoning MEasurement Set), a high-quality evaluation dataset designed to test LLMs' ability to provide factual responses, assess retrieval capabilities, and evaluate the reasoning required to generate final answers. While previous work has provided datasets and benchmarks to evaluate these abilities in isolation, FRAMES offers a unified framework that provides a clearer picture of LLM performance in end-to-end RAG scenarios. Our dataset comprises challenging multi-hop questions that require the integration of information from multiple sources. We present baseline results demonstrating that even state-of-the-art LLMs struggle with this task, achieving 0.40 accuracy with no retrieval. The accuracy is significantly improved with our proposed multi-step retrieval pipeline, achieving an accuracy of 0.66 (>50% improvement). We hope our work will help bridge evaluation gaps and assist in developing more robust and capable RAG systems.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper introduces FRAMES, an 824-question benchmark for end-to-end evaluation of retrieval-augmented generation across factuality, retrieval, and reasoning. It finds that state-of-the-art LLMs struggle without retrieval (0.408 accuracy) but improve to 0.66 with a multi-step retrieval pipeline, still below the 0.729 oracle upper bound.

Key findings

  • Gemini-Pro-1.5-0514 achieved 0.408 accuracy with naive prompting, 0.452 with BM25-R (n_doc=2), 0.474 with BM25-R (n_doc=4), and 0.729 with the Oracle Prompt containing all gold Wikipedia articles.
  • A multi-step retrieval and reasoning pipeline improved accuracy to 0.66 with (k, n, n_docs) = (5,5,10), approaching the 0.729 oracle performance.
  • Errors remained concentrated in numerical, tabular, and post-processing reasoning: among the 27% of Oracle Prompt errors, about 80% belonged to those categories.
  • Synthetic data generation produced >30% hallucinated questions/answers, and after manual cleaning the same LLM scored about 32% on legitimate generated questions.

Methods

  • FRAMES contains 824 human-annotated questions requiring 2–15 Wikipedia articles, labeled by five reasoning types: numerical, tabular, multiple constraints, temporal, and post-processing.
  • Single-step evaluations compared Naive Prompt, BM25-retrieved prompts with top n_docs documents, and Oracle Prompt with all ground-truth articles; models included Gemini-Pro-1.5-0514, Gemini-Flash-1.5-0514, Gemma2-27b, LLama3.2-3B-I, and Qwen2.5-3B-I.
  • Multi-step evaluation used Algorithm 1: the model generated k search queries per iteration for n iterations, retrieved top n_docs Wikipedia articles by BM25, appended new documents to context, and then answered; responses were scored by an LLM autorater validated against human evaluation (accuracy 0.96, Cohen’s Kappa 0.889 for Gemini-Pro-1.5-0514 as autorater).

Limitations

  • The paper states concern about pretraining data contamination because LLMs may have seen Wikipedia information, potentially inflating performance and reducing generalization measurement.
  • The paper states that despite diversity efforts, FRAMES may not fully represent all real-world queries and scenarios, limiting applicability to certain domains or use cases.
  • Evident from the text: retrieval is fixed to BM25 over Wikipedia, and evaluation relies on an LLM autorater; the paper also notes that Gemma, Llama, and Qwen results are not reported for longer-context cases due to smaller maximum context lengths.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2409.12941

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

4 of 9 cited sources checked · 3 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation
    § 4 Related Works · p. 8

    ELI5 targets explainability without rigorous multi-hop reasoning evaluation.

    “NaturalQuestions tests retrieval precision, TriviaQA emphasizes factual correctness, and ELI5 targets explainability without rigorous multi-hop reasoning evaluation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fan et al., 2019 source
  • Premisereasoning
    § 4 Related Works · p. 8

    Existing benchmarks like NaturalQuestions, TriviaQA, and ELI5 focus on specific aspects but lack comprehensive assessment.

    “Existing benchmarks like NaturalQuestions (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019), TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017), and ELI5 (Fan et al., 2019) focus on specific aspects but lack comprehensive assessment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Kwiatkowski et al., 2019 source
    • cites Joshi et al., 2017 source
    • cites Fan et al., 2019 source

      The Introduction identifies ELI5 as a dataset focused on long-form question answering, supporting its use as an example of a benchmark with a specific focus. The paper does not say that ELI5 lacks comprehensive assessment; its Evaluation Methods section describes several ways it assesses answers. Our copy provides section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingown data
    § Abstract · p. 1

    The proposed multi-step retrieval and reasoning framework significantly improves accuracy on complex queries from 0.408 with single-step inference to 0.66 with multi-step retrievals (>50% improvement).

    “However, our proposed multi-step retrieval pipeline significantly improves accuracy to 0.66 (>50% improvement).”
    • Also stated in: § FRAMES: Factuality, Retrieval, And reasoning MEasurement Set · p. 2 · plain
      “We propose a multi-step retrieval and reasoning framework that compels models to iteratively retrieve and reason, significantly enhancing their performance on complex queries, from an accuracy of 0.408 with single-step inference to 0.66 with multi-step retrievals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § FRAMES: Factuality, Retrieval, And reasoning MEasurement Set · p. 2

    FRAMES is an evaluation set of 824 questions/test samples designed to provide an end-to-end/unified evaluation of RAG systems.

    “We introduce FRAMES , a novel dataset of 824 test samples designed to evaluate LLMs' ability to retrieve and reason across multiple documents in a unified framework.”
    • Also stated in: § 2 FRAMES · p. 2 · plain
      “FRAMES ( F actuality, R etrieval, And reasoning ME asurement S et) is an evaluation set of 824 questions designed to provide an end-to-end evaluation of Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) systems.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § 2 FRAMES · p. 3

    On manually cleaned synthetic questions, the same LLM obtained an accuracy of ∼32%.

    “We then evaluated the same LLM on these cleaned questions and obtained an accuracy of ∼ 32%”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 22
  • May combine two claims. 17
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 4 Related Works · p. 8

    TriviaQA emphasizes factual correctness.

    “NaturalQuestions tests retrieval precision, TriviaQA emphasizes factual correctness, and ELI5 targets explainability without rigorous multi-hop reasoning evaluation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Joshi et al., 2017 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given
    § Abstract · p. 1

    FRAMES is a high-quality dataset designed to test LLMs' factual responses, retrieval capabilities, and reasoning in generating final answers.

    “We propose FRAMES ( F actuality, R etrieval, And reasoning ME asurement S et), a high-quality dataset designed to test LLMs' factual responses, retrieval capabilities, and reasoning in generating final answers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given
    § 2 FRAMES · p. 2

    FRAMES assesses three key components of a RAG system: Factuality, Retrieval, and Reasoning.

    “It assesses three key components of a RAG system: Factuality, Retrieval, and Reasoning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § 2 FRAMES · p. 3

    The dataset also covers multi-hop/step questions along with temporal disambiguation.

    “The dataset also covers multi-hop/step questions along with temporal disambiguation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § 3.2 Multi-Step Evaluations · p. 7

    Gemini-Pro-1.5-0514 showed better performance in logical and temporal reasoning, with weaknesses in numerical, tabular, and post-processing reasoning in single-step evaluations.

    “Results show better performance in logical and temporal reasoning, with weaknesses in numerical, tabular, and post-processing reasoning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The LLM auto-rating accurately determines whether the ground truth answer is present in the model response.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 3.2 Multi-Step Evaluations · p. 7

    Multi-step search planning increases performance for all reasoning types, with numerical reasoning surpassing oracle performance.

    “Multi-step search planning increases performance for all reasoning types, with numerical reasoning surpassing oracle performance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The LLM auto-rating accurately determines whether the ground truth answer is present in the model response.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning
    § Algorithm 1 Multi-Step Evaluation with BM25 Retrieval · p. 7

    Five iterations of search retrievals require six non-parallelizable inference calls per question.

    “However, the performance still remains quite low even after five iterations of search retrievals, which is computationally expensive since this requires six non-parallelizable inference calls (five for retrieval + one for final answering) to answer each question.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 2 FRAMES · p. 3

    Approximately 36% of questions require two articles, ∼35% require three articles, ∼16% require four articles, and so on.

    “Approximately 36% of questions require two articles to answer, ∼ 35% require three articles, ∼ 16% require four articles, and so on.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 5 Conclusion · p. 8

    Baseline results showed that even advanced models struggle significantly with the challenging scenarios presented in FRAMES, achieving only moderate improvements when multi-step retrieval and reasoning strategies were employed.

    “The baseline results showed that even advanced models struggle significantly with the challenging scenarios presented in FRAMES , achieving only moderate improvements when multi-step retrieval and reasoning strategies were employed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The LLM auto-rating accurately determines whether the ground truth answer is present in the model response.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingnone given
    § LLMs perform poorly in single-step evaluations. · p. 6

    LLMs perform poorly in single-step evaluations on FRAMES.

    “LLMs perform poorly in single-step evaluations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § 2 FRAMES · p. 3

    The dataset comprises questions related to a diverse set of topics from Wikipedia, involving subjects such as history, sports, science, animals, health, etc.

    “The dataset comprises questions related to a diverse set of topics from Wikipedia, involving subjects such as history, sports, science, animals, health, etc.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given
    § 2 FRAMES · p. 3

    Many questions in FRAMES require a combination of different reasoning abilities to find an answer.

    “Please note that many questions in the dataset also require a combination of different reasoning abilities to find an answer.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 2 FRAMES · p. 3

    Questions requiring reasoning over multiple constraints hold the highest percentage of data samples in the test (∼36%), followed by questions requiring numerical reasoning (∼20%).

    “Questions requiring reasoning over multiple constraints hold the highest percentage of data samples in the test ( ∼ 36%), followed by questions requiring numerical reasoning ( ∼ 20%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § Algorithm 1 Multi-Step Evaluation with BM25 Retrieval · p. 7

    With few examples and instructions not to repeat queries and to think step-by-step, model performance (0.66) reaches close to oracle performance (0.73) by the end of five iterations of retrievals.

    “We observe a very promising trend with these changes, where the model performance (0.66) through iterations reaches close to the oracle performance (0.73) by the end of five iterations of retrievals, as shown in Figure 4.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The LLM auto-rating accurately determines whether the ground truth answer is present in the model response.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § LLMs perform poorly in single-step evaluations. · p. 6

    Gemini-Pro-1.5-0514 achieves an accuracy of 0.452 when the number of documents in the context is 2, and 0.474 when double the number of articles are added.

    “The model achieves an accuracy of 0.452 when the number of documents in the context is 2, and 0.474 when double the number of articles are added to the context.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Abstract · p. 1

    FRAMES offers a unified framework for assessing LLM performance in end-to-end RAG scenarios, unlike previous work that evaluates these abilities in isolation.

    “Unlike previous work evaluating these abilities in isolation, FRAMES offers a unified framework for assessing LLM performance in end-to-end RAG scenarios.”
    • Also stated in: § 2 FRAMES · p. 2 · plain
      “Unlike most existing datasets and benchmarks that evaluate each of these RAG components in isolation, FRAMES offers a comprehensive test bed to gain a clear understanding of the overall quality of RAG systems”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4 Related Works · p. 8

    FRAMES assesses information synthesis into coherent responses, evaluating RAG systems in realistic, multifaceted scenarios.

    “It also assesses information synthesis into coherent responses, evaluating RAG systems in realistic, multifaceted scenarios.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The human annotators followed the task instructions and generated questions that are unambiguous, standalone, and have a single correct answer.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Limitations · p. 9

    There is a risk that some information in FRAMES may have been seen by LLMs during pretraining, potentially inflating performance metrics and reducing the dataset's effectiveness in measuring true generalization.

    “As large language models are trained on vast amounts of internet data, there is a risk that some of the information in our dataset may have been seen by these models during their pretraining phase. This could lead to artificially inflated performance metrics and reduce the dataset's effectiveness in measuring true generalization capabilities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Algorithm 1 Multi-Step Evaluation with BM25 Retrieval · p. 7

    One reason for slow progress in performance is the lack of diversity in the queries generated by the model; the model goes in the wrong direction in search retrievals and never corrects itself.

    “One of the reasons we found behind this slow progress in performance is the lack of diversity in the queries generated by the model; it seemed like the model goes in the wrong direction in search retrievals and never corrects itself.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 2 FRAMES · p. 2

    This holistic approach allows for a more accurate reflection of how these systems perform in real-world scenarios.

    “This holistic approach allows for a more accurate reflection of how these systems perform in real-world scenarios.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5 Conclusion · p. 8

    By simulating realistic, multi-document queries, FRAMES provides a clearer picture of the current capabilities and limitations of LLMs in real-world applications.

    “By simulating realistic, multi-document queries, FRAMES provides a clearer picture of the current capabilities and limitations of LLMs in real-world applications.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The human annotators followed the task instructions and generated questions that are unambiguous, standalone, and have a single correct answer.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 2 FRAMES · p. 4

    Annotators added extra context to disambiguate answers that could change over time.

    “Annotators added extra context to disambiguate answers that could change over time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Algorithm 1 Multi-Step Evaluation with BM25 Retrieval · p. 7

    The BM25-based retrieval system makes the pipeline reproducible and limits the search space to Wikipedia pages only.

    “The BM25-based retrieval system makes our pipeline reproducible and limits the search space to Wikipedia pages only, as the questions were generated from Wikipedia articles only.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 2 FRAMES · p. 5

    Questions were designed to require additional reasoning and operations beyond simple fact retrieval to mitigate data contamination due to Wikipedia articles being in LLM training sets.

    “To mitigate concerns about potential contamination due to Wikipedia articles being in LLM training sets, we designed questions that require additional reasoning and operations beyond simple fact retrieval.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Wikipedia articles are in LLM training sets.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 2 FRAMES · p. 3

    The distribution of number of articles required represents the general trend of queries asked from LLMs in the real world.

    “This distribution also represents the general trend of queries asked from LLMs in the real world (Liu et al., 2009)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Liu et al., 2009

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationown data
    § 5 Conclusion · p. 8

    The findings underscore the importance of further enhancing both the retrieval mechanisms and the reasoning capabilities of these models to improve their overall performance.

    “Our findings underscore the importance of further enhancing both the retrieval mechanisms and the reasoning capabilities of these models to improve their overall performance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The LLM auto-rating accurately determines whether the ground truth answer is present in the model response.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § LLMs perform poorly in single-step evaluations. · p. 6

    The accuracies obtained by Naive Prompt and Oracle Prompt can be considered as the lower bound and upper bound of model performances on FRAMES.

    “The accuracies obtained by the Naive Prompt and Oracle Prompt can be considered as the lower bound (when no relevant articles were provided to the model) and upper bound (when all relevant articles were provided to the model) of model performances on FRAMES .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 2 FRAMES · p. 3

    Models performed significantly poorly on the correct test samples tested, suggesting the instruction to create questions can be used to generate a challenging evaluation set.

    “models performed significantly poorly on the correct test samples we tested on, suggesting that the instruction to create questions can be used to generate a challenging evaluation set.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4 Related Works · p. 8

    FRAMES is a more rigorous and comprehensive benchmark for guiding next-generation RAG system development.

    “This makes FRAMES a more rigorous and comprehensive benchmark for guiding next-generation RAG system development.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The human annotators followed the task instructions and generated questions that are unambiguous, standalone, and have a single correct answer.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § 3.1 Single-Step Evaluations · p. 6

    The performance of Gemma, Llama, and Qwen models is not reported for cases requiring longer context due to the small maximum context length of the model.

    “Please note that the performance of Gemma, Llama, and Qwen models is not reported for cases requiring longer context due to the small maximum context length of the model.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § 3.1 Single-Step Evaluations · p. 6

    The auto-rating mechanism was tested against human evaluations, and LLM-based evaluation showed strong alignment with human annotations (accuracy: 0.96 and Cohen's Kappa: 0.889 for Gemini-Pro-1.5-0514 as autorating LLM).

    “This auto-rating mechanism was tested against human evaluations, in which the LLMbased evaluation showed strong alignment with human annotations (accuracy: 0.96 and Cohen's Kappa: 0.889 for Gemini-Pro-1.5-0514 as autorating LLM)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § 2 FRAMES · p. 4

    Re-annotation three months after initial data collection filtered out 5.5% of samples where the answer was no longer true after that period.

    “This annotation process was conducted three months after collecting the initial data, filtering out 5.5% of samples where the answer was no longer true after that period.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4 Related Works · p. 8

    Unlike existing datasets, FRAMES incorporates complex multi-hop queries requiring information retrieval and integration from various sources, while handling temporal disambiguation.

    “Unlike existing datasets, FRAMES incorporates complex multi-hop queries requiring information retrieval and integration from various sources, while handling temporal disambiguation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The human annotators followed the task instructions and generated questions that are unambiguous, standalone, and have a single correct answer.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 2 FRAMES · p. 4

    The dataset is challenging enough to clearly evaluate LLM capabilities.

    “This ensures the dataset is challenging enough to clearly evaluate LLM capabilities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5 Conclusion · p. 8

    FRAMES addresses a critical need in the evaluation of RAG systems by offering an integrated framework that tests these systems in a more holistic manner compared to existing benchmarks.

    “The FRAMES dataset addresses a critical need in the evaluation of RAG systems by offering an integrated framework that tests these systems in a more holistic manner compared to existing benchmarks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The human annotators followed the task instructions and generated questions that are unambiguous, standalone, and have a single correct answer.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Algorithm 1 Multi-Step Evaluation with BM25 Retrieval · p. 7

    More steps and queries allow the model to add more relevant documents to its context, leading to improved recall and better accuracy.

    “This is expected, as more steps and queries allow the model to add more relevant documents to its context, leading the model to improve recall, which translates to better accuracy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § 2 FRAMES · p. 3

    Synthetic test data requires heavy manual cleaning before usage, suggesting reliance on human annotations instead of LLMs to generate the final evaluation set.

    “Synthetic test data requires heavy manual cleaning before usage, which suggests that we will need to rely on human annotations instead of LLMs to generate the final evaluation set”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationown data
    § Limitations · p. 9

    FRAMES may not fully represent the entire spectrum of real-world queries and scenarios, potentially limiting its applicability to certain domains or use cases.

    “Additionally, while we have strived for diversity in our dataset, it may not fully represent the entire spectrum of real-world queries and scenarios, potentially limiting its applicability to certain domains or use cases.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
38 of 38

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Wikipedia has a lower chance of containing unreliable information compared to other sources.

    “which has a lower chance of containing unreliable information compared to other sources.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Wikipedia articles are in LLM training sets.

    “due to Wikipedia articles being in LLM training sets”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The human annotators are carefully vetted experts with extensive experience in question generation and complex reasoning tasks.

    “we engaged a team of carefully vetted experts with extensive experience in question generation and complex reasoning tasks.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The LLM auto-rating accurately determines whether the ground truth answer is present in the model response.

    “Figure 6: Prompt used to auto-rate the responses of LLM in the experiments. The LLM is provided with questions, model responses, and ground truth answers, along with instructions to check if the model response contains the gold answer.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The human annotators followed the task instructions and generated questions that are unambiguous, standalone, and have a single correct answer.

    “Create n factoid questions that demand multi-hop reasoning based on information found across multiple Wikipedia articles. These questions should ideally have a single, unambiguous answer and may optionally incorporate elements of challenging reasoning.”
5 of 5

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?

  • Several recent works focus their evaluation on question answering (QA) and factuality benchmarks with short-form, easily verifiable answers, including SimpleQA [55], FRAMES [21], GAIA [31], BrowserComp [56], BrowserComp-Plus [8] WebWalkerQA [58], DeepResearch Arena [54] and others.

    “These prior benchmarks include SimpleQA [55], FRAMES [21], GAIA [31], BrowserComp [56], BrowserComp-Plus [8] WebWalkerQA [58], DeepResearch Arena [54] and others traditionally used to evaluate retrieval-augmented generation [53, 19, 61, 20, 22, 16, 49, 24].”

    From DeepScholar-Bench: A Live Benchmark and Automated Evaluation for Generative Research Synthesis (2025) · cites this paper as [21]

    Section 2 FRAMES (p. 2) identifies FRAMES as an evaluation set for retrieval-augmented generation, supporting its inclusion among RAG benchmarks. But the paper describes FRAMES as challenging and multi-hop (Abstract, p. 1), and says its gold answers are free-form (Section 3.1, p. 6); it does not support characterizing FRAMES as a benchmark with easily verifiable short-form answers or establish that characterization for the full list. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Existing QA benchmarks, both general and deep research specific, focus on short, easily-verifiable factual answers and do not capture the long-form, multi-source synthesis required by DR.

    “Typical QA benchmarks, both general [14, 17, 21, 29] and deep research specific [5, 13], focus on short, easily-verifiable factual answers and do not capture the long-form, multi-source synthesis required by DR”

    From ResearchRubrics: A Benchmark of Prompts and Rubrics For Evaluating Deep Research Agents (2025) · cites this paper as [14]

    The annotation instructions (p. 15) require each FRAMES question to have a single, unambiguous answer, and the evaluation (Section 3.1, p. 6) checks responses against gold answers rather than assessing long-form research output. But the Introduction (p. 1) explicitly says FRAMES tests synthesis across multiple retrieved documents, so the claim overstates its failure to capture multi-source synthesis. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • FRAMES comprises challenging multihop questions requiring integration of information from multiple sources, with baseline LLM performance around 0.408 accuracy.

    “FRAMES comprises challenging multihop questions requiring integration of information from multiple sources, with baseline LLM performance around 0.408 accuracy.”

    From Stochasticity in Agentic Evaluations: Quantifying Inconsistency with Intraclass Correlation (2025) · cites this paper as Krishna et al. 2024

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hao Yu, Aoran Gan, Kai Zhang, Shiwei Tong, Qi Liu, and Zhaofeng Liu. 2024b. Evaluation of retrievalaugmented generation: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07437 . · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Krishna, S., Krishna, K., Mohananey, A., Schwarcz, S., Stambler, A., Upadhyay, S., & Faruqui, M.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
ORCID
Krishna, Kalpesh
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2409.12941
arXiv
2409.12941
OpenAlex
W4403748138
Semantic Scholar
46ff7e02fd4ff5fdfb9f85bc7071725b8089061f
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
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, evaluation dataset, multi-hop question answering, multi-source data fusion, large language models, factual reasoning, information retrieval

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-22.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-22.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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