LLM-as-a-Judge for Low-Resource Languages: Adapting Ragas and Comparative Ranking for Romanian

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising paradigm for grounding large language model (LLM) outputs in retrieved evidence, thereby reducing hallucination and improving factual accuracy. Its efficacy, however, remains largely unexamined for low-resource, non-Latin-script languages such as Khmer. In this paper, we present a RAG-based question answering system for Khmer-language telecom-domain documents. We conduct a two-phase comparative evaluation. First, we benchmark three embedding models: BGE-M3 (567M), Jina-Embeddings-v3 (570M), and Qwen3-Embedding (597M), for dense retrieval over Khmer documents. BGE-M3 consistently performs best, achieving a Hit Rate@3 of 0.285, File Hit Rate@3 of 0.700, MRR@3 of 0.221, and Precision@3 of 0.112, substantially outperforming the other retrievers. Second, using BGE-M3 as the selected retriever, we evaluate five generator backends: Qwen3 (8B), Qwen3.5 (9B), Sailor2-8B-Chat, SeaLLMs-v3-7B-Chat, and Llama-SEA-LION-v2-8B-IT, on a curated golden dataset of 200 Khmer question-answer pairs. To quantify system performance, we apply six RAGAS-inspired metrics: faithfulness, answer relevance, context relevance, factual correctness, answer similarity, and answer correctness. The results show no single model dominates across all metrics: Qwen3.5-9B achieves the highest faithfulness (0.859) and context relevance (0.726), Qwen3-8B attains the highest factual correctness (0.380), and SeaLLMs-v3-7B-Chat performs best on answer relevance (0.867), answer similarity (0.836), and answer correctness (0.599). These findings highlight that retriever choice remains a major bottleneck for Khmer RAG, while generator strengths vary depending on whether the priority is grounding, factual precision, or semantic similarity.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems are often compared by asking a large language model (LLM) judge which answer is better. For multi-hop RAG, this has become a measurement problem as much as a modeling problem: the same score can reflect retrieval quality, answer length, lexical overlap, or a statistical test that ignores clustered data. We ask what happens when these choices are made explicit. We propose a minimum measurement standard for LLM-as-a-judge comparisons in RAG. The standard fixes the top-100 candidate pool, evidence budget, answer cap, generator, and prompt; it also requires pre-registered hypotheses, cluster-aware inference, an exact cluster sign-flip check when feasible, and second-judge replication. Clustered benchmarks can overstate progress; the field should adopt this standard. We stress-test it with Genetic Algorithm Decoder for Multi-hop Evidence Composition (GADMEC), an evolutionary evidence selector, on 400 multi-hop questions in computer science/machine learning (CS/ML) and Materials Science. The protocol changes the empirical story. A binomial test makes all four semantic-baseline comparisons look significant; cluster-aware inference leaves only one Bonferroni-significant result. BM25 beats pure semantic GADMEC under the same budget, while a lexical-semantic hybrid recovers in CS/ML and narrows the Materials Science gap.

This paper reports an empirical study evaluating the relevance of several RAG metrics. The experiment is based on a question-answering dataset created by human annotators from business data. The generated responses and retrieved spans of a RAG system are scored using evaluation metrics from four libraries (Ragas, DeepEval, RAGChecker, Opik). These metrics are compared to scores given by two evaluators, as well as to standard metrics such as recall. An analysis of correlations is conducted. Finally, we highlight certain limitations of our methodology, compare it to those used in the literature, and suggest some avenues for future research. This paper is an English translation of a paper originally published in the French-speaking workshop EvalLLM (Brabant, 2026).