Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

The Great Nugget Recall: Automating Fact Extraction and RAG Evaluation with Large Language Models

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 2504.15068 v1 pith:VNJV5CS2 submitted 2025-04-21 cs.IR cs.CL

classification cs.IRcs.CL
keywords evaluationsystemsframeworknuggetagreementanswersapproachautomatic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly enhanced the capabilities of information access systems, especially with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). Nevertheless, the evaluation of RAG systems remains a barrier to continued progress, a challenge we tackle in this work by proposing an automatic evaluation framework that is validated against human annotations. We believe that the nugget evaluation methodology provides a solid foundation for evaluating RAG systems. This approach, originally developed for the TREC Question Answering (QA) Track in 2003, evaluates systems based on atomic facts that should be present in good answers. Our efforts focus on "refactoring" this methodology, where we describe the AutoNuggetizer framework that specifically applies LLMs to both automatically create nuggets and automatically assign nuggets to system answers. In the context of the TREC 2024 RAG Track, we calibrate a fully automatic approach against strategies where nuggets are created manually or semi-manually by human assessors and then assigned manually to system answers. Based on results from a community-wide evaluation, we observe strong agreement at the run level between scores derived from fully automatic nugget evaluation and human-based variants. The agreement is stronger when individual framework components such as nugget assignment are automated independently. This suggests that our evaluation framework provides tradeoffs between effort and quality that can be used to guide the development of future RAG systems. However, further research is necessary to refine our approach, particularly in establishing robust per-topic agreement to diagnose system failures effectively.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. RAVine: Reality-Aligned Evaluation for Agentic Search

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    RAVine is an attributable nugget-based benchmark with process metrics that shows current agentic search models have low citation recall and rely heavily on internal knowledge.

  2. RAGtifier: Evaluating RAG Generation Approaches of State-of-the-Art RAG Systems for the SIGIR LiveRAG Competition

    cs.IR 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A RAG pipeline using InstructRAG, Pinecone, and BGE placed third in the 2025 LiveRAG Challenge, though internal evaluation only weakly predicted official scores.

  3. CIIR@LiveRAG 2025: Optimizing Multi-Agent Retrieval Augmented Generation through Self-Training

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A multi-agent RAG framework trained by self-supervision on high-reward interaction trajectories outperforms a vanilla RAG baseline on DataMorgana-generated questions and places 7th in the LiveRAG 2025 competition.

  4. SIGIR 2025 -- LiveRAG Challenge Report

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    In the SIGIR 2025 LiveRAG Challenge, all 25 active RAG teams beat the no-RAG baseline on LLM-judged correctness, and LLM scores correlated with human scores at r=0.88.

Pith tools