GRADE: Generating multi-hop QA and fine-gRAined Difficulty matrix for RAG Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are widely adopted in knowledge-intensive NLP tasks, but current evaluations often overlook the structural complexity and multi-step reasoning required in real-world scenarios. These benchmarks overlook key factors such as the interaction between retrieval difficulty and reasoning depth. To address this gap, we propose GRADE, a novel evaluation framework that models task difficulty along two orthogonal dimensions: (1) reasoning depth, defined by the number of inference steps (hops), and (2) semantic distance between the query and its supporting evidence. We construct a synthetic multi-hop QA dataset from factual news articles by extracting knowledge graphs and augmenting them through semantic clustering to recover missing links, allowing us to generate diverse and difficulty-controlled queries. Central to our framework is a 2D difficulty matrix that combines generator-side and retriever-side difficulty. Experiments across multiple domains and models show that error rates strongly correlate with our difficulty measures, validating their diagnostic utility. GRADE enables fine-grained analysis of RAG performance and provides a scalable foundation for evaluating and improving multi-hop reasoning in real-world applications.
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 | 0.008 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".