Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

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 2407.01102 v1 pith:IDCJSYCB submitted 2024-07-01 cs.CL cs.IR

BERGEN: A Benchmarking Library for Retrieval-Augmented Generation

classification cs.CL cs.IR
keywords bergenlibraryllmsapproachesbenchmarkingdatasetsdifferentevaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Retrieval-Augmented Generation allows to enhance Large Language Models with external knowledge. In response to the recent popularity of generative LLMs, many RAG approaches have been proposed, which involve an intricate number of different configurations such as evaluation datasets, collections, metrics, retrievers, and LLMs. Inconsistent benchmarking poses a major challenge in comparing approaches and understanding the impact of each component in the pipeline. In this work, we study best practices that lay the groundwork for a systematic evaluation of RAG and present BERGEN, an end-to-end library for reproducible research standardizing RAG experiments. In an extensive study focusing on QA, we benchmark different state-of-the-art retrievers, rerankers, and LLMs. Additionally, we analyze existing RAG metrics and datasets. Our open-source library BERGEN is available under \url{https://github.com/naver/bergen}.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A Survey on Retrieval-Augmented Text Generation for Large Language Models

    cs.IR 2024-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    A survey that categorizes RAG methods for LLMs into four retrieval-centric stages, reviews their evolution and evaluation, and outlines challenges and future directions.