Evaluating RAG Metrics in Applied Contexts: An Experiment, Its Findings and Its Limitations

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) systems are often evaluated using final answer accuracy, even though their failures can originate from preprocessing, retrieval, context packing, or generation. This paper presents a controlled empirical study of RAG sensitivity, robustness, and stability across 56 experimental runs. We evaluate how chunk size, retrieval depth (top k), embedding-based reranking, probabilistic retrieval noise, and repeated seeded runs affect retrieval, context packing, and generation behavior. Using a fixed 500-question QA subset mapped to 20,958 unique corpus contexts, we analyze both final answer metrics and intermediate failure modes. Across these experiments, retrieval-oriented metrics improved under broader retrieval settings, while downstream exact-match and F1 scores often behaved non-monotonically. We also observe preprocessing-induced answer loss under smaller chunk sizes, progressive degradation under retrieval corruption, and higher observed variance in broader retrieval regimes. These findings suggest that RAG evaluation should include sensitivity, robustness, stability, and multi-stage failure analysis rather than relying only on final answer accuracy.

LLM-as-a-judge evaluation is widely used for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), but reusing the same model family as both generator and judge makes self-leniency difficult to identify. We introduce Eval-Pair Matrix, a controlled meta evaluation protocol for source-grounded RAG. Starting from GaRAGe questions and grounding passages, we induce one hidden answer-causal contradiction per record, generate answers from perturbed passages with GPT, Grok, and Gemini models, and then use the same models as blind judges to evaluate each answer against the original passages. The experiment contains 300 core records, 897 labeled generator outputs, and 2,683 judge verdicts in a crossed 3 x 3 matrix; the primary analysis uses 275 fully validated records. Instead of comparing diagonal and off-diagonal cells across different answers, we estimate same-model effects by pairing judges on the exact same candidate answer. This changes the interpretation: diagonal and off diagonal F1 are similar, and the paired same-model recall effect is near zero (-0.5 pp; 95% cluster bootstrap CI [-2.7, +1.7]). The only robust paired gap is lower matching-judge flagging for answers that avoided the induced claim (-4.3 pp). A targeted human evaluation finds that reviewed apparent false positives are alternate source-error detections, mistakes in labeling whether the induced claim was adopted, or unclear cases; none were adjudicated as genuine false alarms. The lesson is methodological: RAG judge studies should report full matrices, answer-paired effects, behavior strata, and label-task alignment.