Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2501.03995v1

In their paper titled "RAG-Check: Evaluating Multimodal Retrieval Augmented Generation Performance," authors Matin Mortaheb, Mohammad A. Amir Khojastepour, Srimat T. Chakradhar, and Sennur Ulukus delve into the realm of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and its impact on large language models (LLMs). RAG is a technique that leverages external knowledge to enhance response generation in LLMs, ultimately reducing the occurrence of hallucinations. The authors highlight a potential drawback of RAG in multi-modal settings where new sources of hallucination can emerge. They identify concerns such as the retrieval process selecting irrelevant pieces from the database and images being processed into text-based context or directly utilized by multi-modal language models like GPT-4o. To address these challenges, they propose a novel framework for evaluating multi-modal RAG through two key performance measures: relevancy score (RS) and correctness score (CS). To validate their framework, Mortaheb et al. train RS and CS models using a database derived from ChatGPT and human evaluator samples. The results show an impressive accuracy rate of approximately 88% on test data for both models. Additionally, they construct a comprehensive 5000-sample human-annotated database to evaluate the relevancy of retrieved pieces and accuracy of response statements. Their RS model aligns with human preferences more frequently than CLIP in retrieval tasks while their CS model successfully matches human preferences around 91% of the time. Finally, Mortaheb and colleagues assess various RAG systems' selection and generation performances using RS and CS metrics to provide valuable insights into improving multi-modal RAG systems effectively. This study emphasizes the importance of rigorously evaluating multi-modal retrieval-augmented generation techniques to mitigate potential sources of hallucination and enhance overall system performance in natural language processing applications.

• - Authors Matin Mortaheb, Mohammad A. Amir Khojastepour, Srimat T. Chakradhar, and Sennur Ulukus explore retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and its impact on large language models (LLMs).
• - RAG leverages external knowledge to enhance response generation in LLMs and reduce hallucinations.
• - Concerns are raised about potential new sources of hallucination in multi-modal settings with RAG.
• - The authors propose a framework for evaluating multi-modal RAG using relevancy score (RS) and correctness score (CS).
• - Mortaheb et al. train RS and CS models with data from ChatGPT and human evaluator samples, achieving an accuracy rate of approximately 88% on test data.
• - They create a human-annotated database to evaluate relevancy of retrieved pieces and accuracy of response statements, showing high alignment with human preferences for both RS and CS models.
• - The study highlights the importance of rigorously evaluating multi-modal RAG systems to improve performance in natural language processing applications.

SummaryAuthors Matin Mortaheb, Mohammad A. Amir Khojastepour, Srimat T. Chakradhar, and Sennur Ulukus study how adding extra information can help big language models write better and more accurate responses. They want to make sure these models don't make up fake information (hallucinations). They are worried that in situations where the model uses both text and images, there might be even more mistakes. To test their ideas, they made a system that checks if the added information is relevant and if the response is correct. By testing this system with real people and computer data from ChatGPT, they found it worked well. Definitions- Authors: People who write books or research papers. - Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG): Adding extra information to help create better responses. - Large language models (LLMs): Big computer programs that understand and generate human-like text. - Hallucinations: Making up false information. - Multi-modal settings: Using both text and images together. - Relevancy score (RS) and correctness score (CS): Scores used to check if the added information is useful and if the response is accurate. - Accuracy rate: How often something is correct compared to all tests done. - Natural language processing applications: Computer programs that understand human languages like English.

Introduction In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have made significant strides in natural language processing (NLP) tasks such as text generation and question-answering. However, these models often suffer from a common issue known as hallucination, where they generate responses that are not supported by the given context or are factually incorrect. This can lead to unreliable and misleading results, making it crucial to address this problem for LLMs to be truly effective. To combat this issue, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising technique that leverages external knowledge sources to enhance response generation in LLMs. RAG aims to reduce the occurrence of hallucinations by providing additional context and information for the model to generate more relevant and accurate responses. However, while RAG has shown promising results in single-modal settings, its effectiveness in multi-modal settings is still under scrutiny. In their paper titled "RAG-Check: Evaluating Multimodal Retrieval Augmented Generation Performance," authors Matin Mortaheb et al. delve into this topic and propose a novel framework for evaluating multi-modal RAG systems. The Problem with Multi-Modal RAG Multi-modal RAG involves using both textual and visual inputs as context for generating responses. This approach has shown great potential in improving response quality but also introduces new challenges such as selecting irrelevant pieces from the database or directly utilizing images without proper processing. For instance, when an image is used as input for a multi-modal language model like GPT-4o, it may process the image into text-based context or use it directly without considering its relevance to the given prompt. This can result in inaccurate or irrelevant responses being generated by the model. Additionally, there is also concern about how well existing evaluation metrics capture performance issues specific to multi-modal RAG systems. Traditional metrics like perplexity do not take into account factors such as the relevancy of retrieved pieces or the accuracy of generated responses, which are crucial in evaluating multi-modal RAG systems. Proposed Framework for Evaluating Multi-Modal RAG To address these challenges, Mortaheb et al. propose a novel framework for evaluating multi-modal RAG systems through two key performance measures: relevancy score (RS) and correctness score (CS). The RS metric evaluates the relevancy of retrieved pieces from the database by comparing them to human preferences. This is achieved by training an RS model using a database derived from ChatGPT and human evaluator samples. The results show an impressive accuracy rate of approximately 88% on test data, indicating that the RS model can effectively capture human preferences in retrieval tasks. Similarly, the CS metric evaluates the accuracy of response statements generated by multi-modal RAG systems. To validate this metric, Mortaheb et al. construct a comprehensive 5000-sample human-annotated database to compare against their CS model's predictions. The results show that their CS model successfully matches human preferences around 91% of the time. Insights from Evaluation Results Using their proposed framework, Mortaheb et al. evaluate various RAG systems' selection and generation performances and provide valuable insights into improving multi-modal RAG systems effectively. One key finding is that their RS model aligns with human preferences more frequently than CLIP in retrieval tasks. This suggests that incorporating additional context from textual inputs can improve relevance in retrieved pieces compared to relying solely on visual inputs. Another important insight is that while existing metrics like perplexity may not capture performance issues specific to multi-modal RAG systems, they can still be useful when combined with new metrics like RS and CS. By considering all three metrics together, researchers can gain a more comprehensive understanding of system performance and identify areas for improvement. Conclusion In conclusion, Mortaheb et al.'s paper sheds light on the importance of rigorously evaluating multi-modal retrieval-augmented generation techniques. Their proposed framework, which includes metrics such as RS and CS, provides a more comprehensive evaluation of system performance and can help mitigate potential sources of hallucination. This study also highlights the need for further research in this area to improve multi-modal RAG systems' effectiveness and address challenges specific to this approach. With the growing use of LLMs in various NLP applications, it is crucial to continue exploring techniques like RAG and developing robust evaluation methods to ensure reliable and accurate results.