Papers › Automated Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Language Models with Task-Specific Exam Generation
Automated Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Language Models with Task-Specific Exam Generation
Gauthier Guinet, Behrooz Omidvar-Tehrani, Anoop Deoras, Laurent Callot
We propose a new method to measure the task-specific accuracy of Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models (RAG). Evaluation is performed by scoring the RAG on an automatically-generated synthetic exam composed of multiple choice questions based on the corpus of documents associated with the task. Our method is an automated, cost-efficient, interpretable, and robust strategy to select the optimal components for a RAG system. We leverage Item Response Theory (IRT) to estimate the quality of an exam and its informativeness on task-specific accuracy. IRT also provides a natural way to iteratively improve the exam by eliminating the exam questions that are not sufficiently informative about a model's ability. We demonstrate our approach on four new open-ended Question-Answering tasks based on Arxiv abstracts, StackExchange questions, AWS DevOps troubleshooting guides, and SEC filings. In addition, our experiments reveal more general insights into factors impacting RAG performance like size, retrieval mechanism, prompting and fine-tuning. Most notably, our findings show that choosing the right retrieval algorithms often leads to bigger performance gains than simply using a larger language model.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections