CUE-R: Beyond the Final Answer in Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Retrieval evaluation for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is increasingly designed around whether retrieved passages contain evidence that can support generation, rather than topical relevance alone. We study whether this closer alignment with downstream evidence needs also makes retrieval evaluation more useful for the decisions built from it. Across five retrieval benchmarks and an end-to-end TREC RAG 2025 setting, we examine an answer-support signal in four roles: comparing retrievers, guiding retrieval training and system selection, predicting downstream answer quality, and filtering the evidence supplied to a generator. The signal changes retrieval rankings, but its downstream value is not uniform. It does not reliably improve retriever training; the benefit of using it for system selection depends on how the generator is instructed to use the retrieved evidence; and retrieval scores based on it do not robustly predict answer quality on unseen topics. In a direct evidence intervention, human annotators confirm that filtering preferentially preserves passages containing useful answer evidence, yet different answer evaluators reach different conclusions about whether the resulting answers improve. These results show that making retrieval evaluation more closely reflect the evidence needed for generation does not by itself make every downstream use of that evaluation more reliable. RAG evaluation methods should therefore be assessed with respect to the particular comparisons, decisions, and conclusions they are intended to support.

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.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds answers in retrieved passages, but retrieval is not verification: a passage can be topical and still fail to justify the answer. We frame this gap as evidence sufficiency verification for selective RAG answering: given a question, a candidate answer, and retrieved evidence, predict whether the evidence supports, refutes, or is insufficient, and abstain unless support is established. We present SURE-RAG, a transparent aggregation protocol built on the observation that evidence sufficiency is a set-level property: missing hops and unresolved conflicts cannot be detected by independent passage scoring. A shared pair-level claim-evidence verifier produces local relation distributions, which SURE-RAG aggregates into interpretable answer-level signals -- coverage, relation strength, disagreement, conflict, and retrieval uncertainty -- yielding a three-way decision and an auditable selective score. We evaluate on HotpotQA-RAG v3, a controlled multi-hop benchmark, under an artifact-aware protocol (shortcut baselines, counterfactual swaps, no-oracle checks, GPT-4o audits). Calibrated SURE-RAG reaches 0.9075 Macro-F1 (0.8951 +/- 0.0069), substantially above DeBERTa mean-pooling (0.6516) and a GPT-4o judge (0.7284), while matching a strong but opaque concat cross-encoder (0.8888 +/- 0.0109) with full auditability. Risk at 30% coverage drops from 0.2588 to 0.1642, a 37% reduction in unsafe answers. To deliberately probe the task boundary, we further contrast SURE-RAG with GPT-4o on HaluBench unsafe detection: the ranking reverses (0.3343 vs 0.7389 unsafe-F1), establishing that controlled sufficiency verification and natural hallucination detection are distinct problems.