Improving the Evaluation of Biomedical Question Answering with Few Human Preference Signals

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) offers a well-established path to grounding large language model (LLM) outputs in external knowledge, yet the question of which retrieval strategy works best in a high-stakes domain such as biomedicine has not received the controlled, multi-metric treatment it deserves. This paper presents a systematic empirical comparison of five retrieval strategies -- Dense Vector Search, Hybrid BM25 + Dense retrieval, Cross-Encoder Reranking, Multi-Query Expansion, and Maximal Marginal Relevance (MMR) -- within a biomedical question-answering RAG pipeline. All strategies share a fixed generation model (GPT-4o-mini), a common vector store (ChromaDB), and OpenAI's text-embedding-3-small embeddings, ensuring that observed differences are attributable to retrieval alone. Evaluation is conducted on 250 question-answer pairs drawn from a preprocessed subset of the BioASQ benchmark (rag-mini-bioasq) using four DeepEval metrics: contextual precision, contextual recall, faithfulness, and answer relevancy, each reported with 95% confidence intervals. A no-context ablation is included as a lower bound. Cross-Encoder Reranking achieves the best composite score (0.827) and highest contextual precision (0.852), confirming that query-document interaction yields measurable retrieval gains. Multi-Query Expansion, despite its recall-oriented design, produces the weakest contextual precision (0.671), suggesting naive query diversification introduces retrieval noise. MMR sacrifices answer relevancy for diversity, while the Dense baseline (composite 0.822) falls within 0.005 points of the top strategy. All RAG conditions dramatically outperform the no-context ablation on answer relevancy (0.658-0.701 vs. 0.287), confirming the practical value of retrieval. The full pipeline, hyperparameters, and evaluation code are publicly available.

Medical question answering is a high-stakes setting where factual errors can have serious consequences. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is widely viewed as a promising solution, and prior work has reported substantial gains for large medical QA models. We revisit this assumption across a broad range of open-weight instruction-tuned models spanning 7B to 72B parameters. Across five models, ten biomedical QA datasets, four retrieval methods, and four retrieval corpora, we find that retrieval yields only small and inconsistent improvements over a no-retrieval baseline, typically within 1-2 points. In contrast, the choice of backbone model has a much larger effect than the choice of retriever or corpus, and expert and layman retrieval sources perform similarly in most settings. These results suggest that the main bottleneck is not retrieval quality alone, but the model's limited ability to use retrieved evidence effectively.

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).