Fact, Fetch, and Reason: A Unified Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation
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.
Our work addresses a critical void in the current landscape by offering a challenging evaluation benchmark that not only tests the individual components of LLMs but also evaluates their performance in an end-to-end context. Through our dataset, we simulate realistic, multi-document queries to assess the ability of LLMs to retrieve relevant facts, reason accurately, and synthesize information into coherent responses. Additionally, we present empirical results on the performance of state-of-the- art models, highlighting both their strengths and the limitations in their reasoning capabilities. These findings pave the way for further research and development of more robust and efficient retrieval-augmented generation systems. Our key contributions are as follows:
• 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.
• We provide a comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs, highlighting their performance on factuality, retrieval, and reasoning tasks across diverse domains.
• We present new empirical insights into the limitations of existing LLMs in handling multihop and temporal reasoning tasks, offering avenues for future research to improve these systems.
• We propose a multi-step retrieval and reasoning framework that compels models to iteratively retrieve and reason, significantly enhancing their performance on complex queries.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
What memory architectures best support persistent learning across sessions? How should systems adaptively decide when to retrieve information during reasoning?- Why does long-form generation need different retrieval than factoid questions?
- How should temporal metadata indexing differ from semantic indexing?
- How does hierarchical query planning versus flat prompting affect multi-source retrieval?
- Why does selective context retrieval outperform including all historical information?
- Do single-step retrieval systems with sophisticated synthesis qualify as deep research?
- How does retrieval-augmented generation extract structured properties from domain descriptions?
- Why does domain-specific terminology require customization of vector search and generation?
- What makes web retrieval more effective than static knowledge bases?
- What hidden costs might fine-tuning retrieval models introduce on out-of-distribution queries?
- When does long-context LLM reasoning fail where structured retrieval succeeds?
- What mathematical limits constrain embedding-based retrieval systems?
- Why do pretrained LLM representations fail at task-specific relevance ranking?
- How does cross-encoder concatenation capture query-item interactions better than bi-encoders?
- What makes retrieval augmentation more effective than simply increasing embedding size?
- Why do language models fail at coreference across long contexts?
- Can long-context readers handle compositional tasks or just semantic search?