RARE: Redundancy-Aware Retrieval Evaluation Framework for High-Similarity Corpora
Authors: Hanjun Cho, Jay-Yoon Lee
Organizations: Allganize · Seoul National University
Abstract
Existing QA benchmarks typically assume distinct documents with minimal overlap, yet real-world retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems operate on corpora such as financial reports, legal codes, and patents, where information is highly redundant and documents exhibit strong inter-document similarity. This mismatch undermines evaluation validity: retrievers can be unfairly undervalued even when they retrieve documents that provide sufficient evidence, because redundancy across documents is not accounted for in evaluation. On the other hand, retrievers that perform well on standard benchmarks often generalize poorly to real-world corpora with highly similar and redundant documents. We present RARE (Redundancy-Aware Retrieval Evaluation), a framework for constructing realistic benchmarks by (i) decomposing documents into atomic facts to enable precise redundancy tracking and (ii) enhancing LLM-based data generation with CRRF. RAG benchmark data usually requires multiple quality criteria, but LLMs often yield trivial outputs. CRRF scores criteria separately and fuses decisions by rank, improving the reliability of generated data. Applying RARE to Finance, Legal, and Patent corpora, we introduce RedQA, where a strong retriever baseline drops from 66.4% PerfRecall@10 on 4-hop General-Wiki to 5.0-27.9% PerfRecall@10 at 4-hop depth, revealing robustness gaps that current benchmarks fail to capture. RARE enables practitioners to build domain-specific RAG evaluations that faithfully reflect real-world deployment conditions.
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 quality is the primary bottleneck for accuracy and robustness in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). Current evaluation relies on heuristically constructed query sets, which introduce a hidden intrinsic bias. We formalize retrieval evaluation as a statistical estimation problem, showing that metric reliability is fundamentally limited by the evaluation-set construction. We further introduce \emph{semantic stratification}, which grounds evaluation in corpus structure by organizing documents into an interpretable global space of entity-based clusters and systematically generating queries for missing strata. This yields (1) formal semantic coverage guarantees across retrieval regimes and (2) interpretable visibility into retrieval failure modes. Experiments across multiple benchmarks and retrieval methods validate our framework. The results expose systematic coverage gaps, identify structural signals that explain variance in retrieval performance, and show that stratified evaluation yields more stable and transparent assessments while supporting more trustworthy decision-making than aggregate metrics.
Evaluating retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems requires benchmarks that capture diverse question characteristics, yet practitioners lack empirical guidance on which dimensions to vary and at what granularity. We present HieraRAG, a hierarchical framework for studying granularity in RAG benchmark construction, defining optimal granularity as the level that maximizes discriminative power (the standard deviation of generation quality across categories) within a given RAG configuration. As a case study, we generate 5,872 synthetic question-answer (QA) pairs from FineWeb-10BT across 3 dimensions (Question Complexity, Answer Type, Linguistic Variation) at 3 granularity levels (2, 4, and 8 categories). With a BM25+Falcon-3-10B pipeline, optimal granularity varies by dimension: complexity benefits from fine-grained distinctions (discriminative power: 0.053) while answer type and linguistic variation peak at medium granularity. We introduce a Coherence Ratio metric to quantify whether fine-grained splits cleanly subdivide parent categories, revealing structural differences across dimensions (Question Complexity: 0.40 vs. Answer Type: 1.44). Human evaluation of 110 stratified QA pairs confirms synthetic quality. While these specific findings reflect a single configuration, HieraRAG provides a portable procedure and validation metric for practitioners to determine evaluation granularity within their own RAG settings.