Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

LIT-RAGBench: Benchmarking Generator Capabilities of Large Language Models in Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Koki Itai, Shunichi Hasegawa, Yuta Yamamoto, Gouki Minegishi +1 more

Published

Mar 6, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

37/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

60% (Moderate)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Mar 6, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Tags

Automatic Metrics Coding Llm As Judge Long Horizon Multilingual

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A benchmark-and-metrics comparison anchor.

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Main weakness

No major weakness surfaced.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
37/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is a framework in which a Generator, such as a Large Language Model (LLM), produces answers by retrieving documents from an external collection using a Retriever. In practice, Generators must integrate evidence from long contexts, perform multi-step reasoning, interpret tables, and abstain when evidence is missing. However, existing benchmarks for Generators provide limited coverage, with none enabling simultaneous evaluation of multiple capabilities under unified conditions. To bridge the gap between existing evaluations and practical use, we introduce LIT-RAGBench (the Logic, Integration, Table, Reasoning, and Abstention RAG Generator Benchmark), which defines five categories: Integration, Reasoning, Logic, Table, and Abstention, each further divided into practical evaluation aspects. LIT-RAGBench systematically covers patterns combining multiple aspects across categories. By using fictional entities and scenarios, LIT-RAGBench evaluates answers grounded in the provided external documents. The dataset consists of 114 human-constructed Japanese questions and an English version generated by machine translation with human curation. We use LLM-as-a-Judge for scoring and report category-wise and overall accuracy. Across API-based and open-weight models, no model exceeds 90% overall accuracy. By making strengths and weaknesses measurable within each category, LIT-RAGBench serves as a valuable metric for model selection in practical RAG deployments and for building RAG-specialized models. We release LIT-RAGBench, including the dataset and evaluation code, at https://github.com/Koki-Itai/LIT-RAGBench.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is a framework in which a Generator, such as a Large Language Model (LLM), produces answers by retrieving documents from an external collection using a Retriever."

Evaluation Modes

strong

Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is a framework in which a Generator, such as a Large Language Model (LLM), produces answers by retrieving documents from an external collection using a Retriever."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is a framework in which a Generator, such as a Large Language Model (LLM), produces answers by retrieving documents from an external collection using a Retriever."

Benchmarks / Datasets

strong

Lit Ragbench

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"To bridge the gap between existing evaluations and practical use, we introduce LIT-RAGBench (the Logic, Integration, Table, Reasoning, and Abstention RAG Generator Benchmark), which defines five categories: Integration, Reasoning, Logic, Table, and Abstention, each further divided into practical evaluation aspects."

Reported Metrics

strong

Accuracy

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"We use LLM-as-a-Judge for scoring and report category-wise and overall accuracy."

Benchmarks and datasets

lit-ragbench

Reported metrics

accuracy
Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Not reported
Expertise required
Coding, Multilingual
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics
Agentic eval
Long Horizon
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Moderate
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is a framework in which a Generator, such as a Large Language Model (LLM), produces answers by retrieving documents from an external collection using a Retriever.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is a framework in which a Generator, such as a Large Language Model (LLM), produces answers by retrieving documents from an external collection using a Retriever.
  • In practice, Generators must integrate evidence from long contexts, perform multi-step reasoning, interpret tables, and abstain when evidence is missing.
  • However, existing benchmarks for Generators provide limited coverage, with none enabling simultaneous evaluation of multiple capabilities under unified conditions.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics, Tool-use evaluation) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Accuracy

Contribution summary

  • However, existing benchmarks for Generators provide limited coverage, with none enabling simultaneous evaluation of multiple capabilities under unified conditions.
  • To bridge the gap between existing evaluations and practical use, we introduce LIT-RAGBench (the Logic, Integration, Table, Reasoning, and Abstention RAG Generator Benchmark), which defines five categories: Integration, Reasoning, Logic,…
  • We use LLM-as-a-Judge for scoring and report category-wise and overall accuracy.

Why it matters for eval

  • To bridge the gap between existing evaluations and practical use, we introduce LIT-RAGBench (the Logic, Integration, Table, Reasoning, and Abstention RAG Generator Benchmark), which defines five categories: Integration, Reasoning, Logic,…
  • We use LLM-as-a-Judge for scoring and report category-wise and overall accuracy.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: lit-ragbench

  • Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy