| # Practical RAG evaluation protocol: measure the first ten chunks |
|
|
| ## Why K=10 is the deployment target |
|
|
| A RAG system does not consume an abstract recall curve. It consumes a small context set. Chunks ranked at 100, 500, or 1000 are normally never passed to the generator. Optimizing deep recall can therefore reward a retriever for spending CPU, memory bandwidth, and storage on results that have zero downstream utility. |
|
|
| For this repository, the primary protocol is deliberately strict: |
|
|
| - retrieve a ranked **top 10**; |
| - report **nDCG@10, MRR@10, Precision@10, Recall@10, Hit@10**; |
| - measure **CPU median latency, p95 latency, and QPS**; |
| - report the number of routed candidates and the chunk shortlist size `P`; |
| - use deep-recall metrics only as diagnostics, never as the main optimization objective. |
|
|
| This is the only protocol in the repository used to decide whether a change helps practical RAG. |
|
|
| ## Why shortlist size P is a RAG parameter |
|
|
| The historical system used `P=2000` because it was selected for Recall@100. Once the objective became top-10 RAG quality, the relevant question changed to: |
|
|
| > How many retrieved geometric representations should be exposed to chunk-level scoring before choosing ten chunks? |
|
|
| The current sweep is therefore `P in {25, 50, 100, 200, 500}` plus the historical `P=2000` reference. TREC-COVID has a large route and peaks sharply at `P=100`; SciFact has a tiny route (~157 candidates/query) and improves as the artificial pruning is removed. The lesson is not that 100 is universal. The lesson is that **the shortlist must be evaluated for the top-10 deployment objective rather than inherited from a deep-recall benchmark.** |
|
|
| ## Timing discipline |
|
|
| Speed is a first-class result. |
|
|
| 1. CPU is the principal deployment regime. |
| 2. Warm the index before timing. |
| 3. Record median and p95, not only an average. |
| 4. Report query representation time separately when a baseline uses a neural encoder. |
| 5. Never compare our end-to-end latency with an ANN-only latency that silently excludes dense query encoding. |
| 6. Mark diagnostic Python implementations as diagnostic; do not present them as optimized production latency. |
|
|