RAG-Check: Evaluating Multimodal Retrieval Augmented Generation Performance
Authors: Matin Mortaheb, Mohammad A. Amir Khojastepour, Srimat T. Chakradhar, Sennur Ulukus
AI-generated Key Points
- 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.
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.
Tools for this paper
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
We compare the title and abstract with papers indexed in our database. For arXiv papers, we search within the same category; for DOI and other sources, we search across sources and subjects. You can rerun the search as our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.