Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

RAG-Check: Evaluating Multimodal Retrieval Augmented Generation Performance

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2501.03995 v1 pith:RO5YYREM submitted 2025-01-07 cs.LG cs.CVcs.IRcs.ITmath.IT

RAG-Check: Evaluating Multimodal Retrieval Augmented Generation Performance

classification cs.LG cs.CVcs.IRcs.ITmath.IT
keywords modelsgenerationdatabaseevaluatinghumanmulti-modalresponseretrieval
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) improves large language models (LLMs) by using external knowledge to guide response generation, reducing hallucinations. However, RAG, particularly multi-modal RAG, can introduce new hallucination sources: (i) the retrieval process may select irrelevant pieces (e.g., documents, images) as raw context from the database, and (ii) retrieved images are processed into text-based context via vision-language models (VLMs) or directly used by multi-modal language models (MLLMs) like GPT-4o, which may hallucinate. To address this, we propose a novel framework to evaluate the reliability of multi-modal RAG using two performance measures: (i) the relevancy score (RS), assessing the relevance of retrieved entries to the query, and (ii) the correctness score (CS), evaluating the accuracy of the generated response. We train RS and CS models using a ChatGPT-derived database and human evaluator samples. Results show that both models achieve ~88% accuracy on test data. Additionally, we construct a 5000-sample human-annotated database evaluating the relevancy of retrieved pieces and the correctness of response statements. Our RS model aligns with human preferences 20% more often than CLIP in retrieval, and our CS model matches human preferences ~91% of the time. Finally, we assess various RAG systems' selection and generation performances using RS and CS.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Utility-Oriented Visual Evidence Selection for Multimodal Retrieval-Augmented Generation

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Evidence utility is defined as information gain on the model's output distribution, with ranking by gain on a latent helpfulness variable shown equivalent to answer-space utility under mild assumptions, enabling a tra...

  2. Purifying Multimodal Retrieval: Fragment-Level Evidence Selection for RAG

    cs.IR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    FES-RAG reframes multimodal RAG as fragment-level selection using Fragment Information Gain to outperform document-level methods with up to 27% relative CIDEr gains on M2RAG while shortening context.

  3. "I Don't Know" -- Towards Appropriate Trust with Certainty-Aware Retrieval Augmented Generation

    cs.IR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    CERTA adds relevance-based certainty estimation to RAG so LLMs can better signal uncertainty on non-objective questions, reducing overconfidence.