CuBE: A Customizable Bounds Evaluation Framework for Automated Assessment of RAG Systems in Government Services
Source abstract
Abstract
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are increasingly adopted in government services, yet different administrations have varying customization needs and lack standardized methods to evaluate performance. In particular, general-purpose evaluation approaches fail to show how well a system meets domain-specific expectations. This paper presents CuBE (Customizable Bounds Evaluation), a tailored evaluation framework for RAG systems in public administration. CuBE integrates large language model (LLM) scoring, customizable evaluation dimensions, and a bounded scoring paradigm with baseline and upper-bound reference sets, enhancing fairness, consistency, and interpretability. We further introduce Lightweight Targeted Assessment (LTA) to support efficient customization. CuBE is validated on GSIA (Guizhou Provincial Government Service Center Intelligent Assistant) by using four state-of-the-art language models. The results show that CuBE produces robust, stable, and model-agnostic evaluations while reducing reliance on manual annotation and facilitating system optimization and rapid iteration. Moreover, CuBE informs parameter settings, enabling developers to design RAG systems that better meet customizer needs. This study establishes a replicable paradigm for trustworthy and efficient evaluation of RAG systems in complex government service scenarios.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Business Process Modeling and Analysis · Software System Performance and Reliability · Service-Oriented Architecture and Web Services
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Guizhou Key Laboratory of Advanced Computing, Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang 550001, China
Guizhou Key Laboratory of Advanced Computing, Guizhou-Cloud Big Data Group Co., Ltd., Guiyang 550081, China
Funding
Guizhou Science and Technology Department Platform Program · Guizhou Key Laboratory of Advanced Computing, Guizhou Normal University
References (33)
Show source-provided references
1. DeepSeek-AI, Guo, D., Yang, D., Zhang, H., Song, J., Zhang, R., Xu, R., Zhu, Q., Ma, S., and Wang, P. (2025). DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in LLMs via reinforcement learning. arXiv.
2. Policy initiatives for artificial intelligence-enabled government: An analysis of national strategies in europe
3. Zhang, L., and Zhang, X. (2025). Impact of digital government construction on the intelligent transformation of enterprises: Evidence from China. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 210.10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123787 ↗
4. Zheng, Y., Yu, H., Cui, L., Miao, C., Leung, C., and Yang, Q. (2018, January 2–7). SmartHS: An AI platform for improving government service provision. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, New Orleans, LA, USA.10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11382 ↗
5. Intelligent practices of large language models in digital government services10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3349969 ↗
6. Papageorgiou, G., Sarlis, V., Maragoudakis, M., and Tjortjis, C. (2024). Enhancing E-government services through state-of-the-art, modular, and reproducible architecture over large language models. Appl. Sci., 14.10.3390/app14188259 ↗
7. How will the state think with ChatGPT? The challenges of generative artificial intelligence for public administrations10.1007/s00146-023-01840-9 ↗
8. (2025, September 22). How RAG Systems Improve Public Sector Management. Available online: https://www.datategy.net/2025/04/07/how-rag-systems-improve-public-sector-management/.
9. LLM-based NLG Evaluation: Current Status and Challenges10.1162/coli_a_00561 ↗
10. Karpukhin, V., Oğuz, B., Min, S., Lewis, P., Wu, L., Edunov, S., Chen, D., and Yih, W.T. (2020). Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. arXiv.10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.550 ↗
11. Papineni, K., Roukos, S., Ward, T., and Zhu, W.J. (2002, January 6–12). Bleu: A method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Philadelphia, PA, USA.10.3115/1073083.1073135 ↗
12. Lin, C.Y. (2004, January 25–26). ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. Proceedings of the Text Summarization Branches Out, Barcelona, Spain.
13. Zhang, T., Kishore, V., Wu, F., Weinberger, K.Q., and Artzi, Y. (2020). BERTScore: Evaluating text generation with BERT. arXiv.
14. Fu, J., Ng, S.K., Jiang, Z., and Liu, P. (2023). GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desire. arXiv.10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.365 ↗
15. Es, S., James, J., Espinosa-Anke, L., and Schockaert, S. (2025). Ragas: Automated Evaluation of Retrieval Augmented Generation. arXiv.10.18653/v1/2024.eacl-demo.16 ↗
16. Lin, Y.T., and Chen, Y.N. (2023). LLM-Eval: Unified Multi-Dimensional Automatic Evaluation for Open-Domain Conversations with Large Language Models. arXiv.10.18653/v1/2023.nlp4convai-1.5 ↗
17. Desmond, M., Ashktorab, Z., Pan, Q., Dugan, C., and Johnson, J.M. (2024, January 18–21). EvaluLLM: LLM assisted evaluation of generative outputs. Proceedings of the Companion Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Greenville, SC, USA.10.1145/3640544.3645216 ↗
18. Liusie, A., Manakul, P., and Gales, M.J.F. (2024). LLM Comparative Assessment: Zero-shot NLG Evaluation through Pairwise Comparisons using Large Language Models. arXiv.10.18653/v1/2024.eacl-long.8 ↗
19. Chan, C.M., Chen, W., Su, Y., Yu, J., Xue, W., Zhang, S., Fu, J., and Liu, Z. (2023). ChatEval: Towards better LLM-based evaluators through multi-agent debate. arXiv.
20. Benchmarking foundation models with language-model-as-an-examiner
21. Judging LLM-as-a-judge with MT-bench and chatbot arena
22. Gu, J., Jiang, X., Shi, Z., Tan, H., Zhai, X., Xu, C., Li, W., Shen, Y., Ma, S., and Liu, H. (2025). A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge. arXiv.
23. Chen, G.H., Chen, S., Liu, Z., Jiang, F., and Wang, B. (2024). Humans or LLMs as the judge? A study on judgement biases. arXiv.10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.474 ↗
24. Guo, Y., Guo, M., Su, J., Yang, Z., Zhu, M., Li, H., Qiu, M., and Liu, S.S. (2024). Bias in large language models: Origin, evaluation, and mitigation. arXiv.
25. Tian, K., Mitchell, E., Zhou, A., Sharma, A., Rafailov, R., Yao, H., Finn, C., and Manning, C.D. (2023). Just ask for calibration: Strategies for eliciting calibrated confidence scores from language models fine-tuned with human feedback. arXiv.10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.330 ↗
26. Raju, R., Jain, S., Li, B., Li, J., and Thakker, U. (2024). Constructing domain-specific evaluation sets for LLM-as-a-judge. arXiv.10.18653/v1/2024.customnlp4u-1.14 ↗
27. RAGChecker: A Fine-grained Framework for Diagnosing Retrieval-Augmented Generation
28. (2011). Online government advisory service innovation through intelligent support systems. Inf. Manag., 48, 27–36.10.1016/j.im.2010.12.002 ↗
29. (2024). A survey on RAG with LLMs. Procedia Comput. Sci., 246, 3781–3790.10.1016/j.procs.2024.09.178 ↗
30. Chen, J., Lin, H., Han, X., and Sun, L. (2024, January 26–27). Benchmarking Large Language Models in Retrieval-Augmented Generation. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
31. Dinh, T.A., Mullov, C., Bärmann, L., Li, Z., Liu, D., Reiß, S., Lee, J., Lerzer, N., Ternava, F., and Gao, J. (2024). SciEx: Benchmarking Large Language Models on Scientific Exams with Human Expert Grading and Automatic Grading. arXiv.10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.647 ↗
32. Synthetic Data Generation Using Large Language Models: Advances in Text and Code10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3589503 ↗
33. An enterprise view for artificial intelligence capability and governance: A system dynamics approach