Seeing Through the MiRAGE: Evaluating Multimodal Retrieval Augmented Generation

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) over knowledge graphs has emerged as a promising approach for grounding large language models, yet existing benchmarks largely overlook the challenges of retrieval in multimodal knowledge graph RAG (MKG-RAG). In practice, retrieval is a critical bottleneck: multimodal knowledge is heterogeneous, difficult to align across modalities, and often poorly served by retrievers designed for unstructured corpora. To address this gap, we introduce MKG-RAG-Bench, a cross-domain benchmark explicitly designed to evaluate retrieval in MKG-RAG. MKG-RAG-Bench is constructed from two multimodal knowledge graphs spanning general and medical domains, and includes carefully aligned question-answering datasets that support controlled evaluation of both retrieval and downstream generation. The benchmark is built using an LLM-based curation pipeline that filters low-utility knowledge, generates structurally grounded queries with exact supervision, and systematically covers diverse modality configurations. Through extensive experiments across representative retriever families and modality settings, we show that effective multimodal retrieval remains challenging yet crucial for end-to-end MKG-RAG performance, and that retrieval quality strongly determines generation outcomes. By isolating retrieval as a first-class evaluation target, MKG-RAG-Bench provides a principled foundation for diagnosing current limitations and advancing multimodal knowledge graph RAG systems.

Multimodal Retrieval-Augmented Generation (MRAG) addresses key limitations of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), such as hallucination and outdated knowledge. However, current MRAG systems struggle to distinguish whether retrieved multimodal data truly supports the semantic core of an answer or merely provides superficial relevance. Existing metrics often rely on heuristic position-based confidence, which fails to capture the informational density of multimodal entities. To address this, we propose Multi-modal Evidence Grounding (MEG), a semantic-aware metric that quantifies the contribution of retrieved evidence. Unlike standard confidence measures, MEG utilizes Semantic Certainty Anchoring, focusing on high-IDF information-bearing tokens that better capture the semantic core of the answer. Building on MEG, we introduce MEG-RAG, a framework that trains a multimodal reranker to align retrieved evidence with the semantic anchors of the ground truth. By prioritizing high-value content based on semantic grounding rather than token probability distributions, MEG-RAG improves the accuracy and multimodal consistency of generated outputs. Extensive experiments on the M$^2$RAG benchmark show that MEG-RAG consistently outperforms strong baselines and demonstrates robust generalization across different teacher models.

Retrieval-augmented generation improves the factuality of large language models by grounding responses in retrieved evidence, yet existing evaluation frameworks struggle to provide consistent, fine-grained diagnostics across the diverse spectrum of user queries, ranging from close-ended fact-seeking to open-ended explanatory requests. We propose Q-CARE, a query-agnostic and fully reference-free framework that enables fine-grained assessment by decomposing queries into sub-queries and answers into atomic claims. Q-CARE establishes a unified evaluation principle based on query coverage and claim verifiability, yielding coverage-aware retriever metrics (C-Prec@k, C-nDCG@k) and claim-level generator metrics (Completeness, Conciseness, and Verifiableness). On a human-annotated benchmark spanning eight datasets, Q-CARE achieves higher correlation with human judgments than four existing RAG evaluation metrics, including RAGEval and RAGChecker, proving its effectiveness as a reliable, automated evaluation framework. Code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/DISL-Lab/Q-CaRE-COLM-26.