Response Quality Assessment for Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Conditional Conformal Factuality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing research on Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) primarily focuses on improving overall question-answering accuracy, often overlooking the quality of sub-claims within generated responses.Recent methods that attempt to improve RAG trustworthiness, such as through auto-evaluation metrics, lack probabilistic guarantees or require ground truth answers.To address these limitations, we propose Conformal-RAG, a novel framework inspired by recent applications of conformal prediction (CP) on large language models (LLMs).Conformal-RAG leverages CP and internal information from the RAG mechanism to offer statistical guarantees on response quality.It ensures group-conditional coverage spanning multiple sub-domains without requiring manual labelling of conformal sets, making it suitable for complex RAG applications.Compared to existing RAG auto-evaluation methods, Conformal-RAG offers statistical guarantees on the quality of refined sub-claims, ensuring response reliability without the need for ground truth answers.Additionally, our experiments demonstrate that by leveraging information from the RAG system, Conformal-RAG retains up to 60% more high-quality sub-claims from the response compared to direct applications of CP to LLMs, while maintaining the same reliability guarantee.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".