arXiv:2607. 17108v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In multi-hop RAG evaluation, a top-k answer score can hide two different failures: the retrieval window may drop part of the support chain, or it may contain support in a form the adapted reader does not use well.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2605. 03534v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds answers in retrieved passages, yet relevance does not guarantee sufficiency: a topical passage may still fail to justify the answer.
arXiv:2608. 11238v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation improves the factuality of large language models by grounding responses in retrieved evidence, yet existing evaluation frameworks struggle to provide consistent, fine-grained diagnostics across the diverse spectrum of user queries, ranging from close-ended fact-seeking to open-ended explanatory requests.
arXiv:2608. 08944v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A failed retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) answer can be consistent with several unseen responses to evidence repair.
arXiv:2606. 28337v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are often evaluated using final answer accuracy, even though their failures can originate from preprocessing, retrieval, context packing, or generation.
arXiv:2501. 06286v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Multi-hop question answering requires a system to identify and integrate evidence distributed across documents, yet large language models remain vulnerable to irrelevant context.
arXiv:2606. 08151v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-using LLM agents often fail not because relevant text is absent, but because decisive evidence is not selected, compressed, or surfaced at action time.