A Systematic Literature Review of Retrieval-Augmented Generation: Techniques, Metrics, and Challenges

Background: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) aims to reduce hallucinations and outdated knowledge by grounding LLM outputs in retrieved evidence, but empirical results are scattered across tasks, systems, and metrics, limiting cumulative insight. Objective: We aimed to synthesise empirical evidence on RAG effectiveness versus parametric-only baselines, map datasets/architectures/evaluation practices, and surface limitations and research gaps. Methods: This systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020. We searched the ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and DBLP; all sources were last searched on 13 May 2025. This included studies from January 2020–May 2025 that addressed RAG or similar retrieval-supported systems producing text output, met citation thresholds (≥15 for 2025; ≥30 for 2024 or earlier), and offered original contributions; excluded non-English items, irrelevant works, duplicates, and records without accessible full text. Bias was appraised with a brief checklist; screening used one reviewer with an independent check and discussion. LLM suggestions were advisory only; 2025 citation thresholds were adjusted to limit citation-lag. We used a descriptive approach to synthesise the results, organising studies by themes aligned to RQ1–RQ4 and reporting summary counts/frequencies; no meta-analysis was undertaken due to heterogeneity of designs and metrics. Results: We included 128 studies spanning knowledge-intensive tasks (35/128; 27.3%), open-domain QA (20/128; 15.6%), software engineering (13/128; 10.2%), and medical domains (11/128; 8.6%). Methods have shifted from DPR+seq2seq baselines to modular, policy-driven RAG with hybrid/structure-aware retrieval, uncertainty-triggered loops, memory, and emerging multimodality. Evaluation remains overlap-heavy (EM/$F_1$), with increasing use of retrieval diagnostics (e.g., Recall@k, MRR@k), human judgements, and LLM-as-judge protocols. Efficiency and security (poisoning, leakage, jailbreaks) are growing concerns. Discussion: Evidence supports a shift to modular, policy-driven RAG, combining hybrid/structure-aware retrieval, uncertainty-aware control, memory, and multimodality, to improve grounding and efficiency. To advance from prototypes to dependable systems, we recommend: (i) holistic benchmarks pairing quality with cost/latency and safety, (ii) budget-aware retrieval/tool-use policies, and (iii) provenance-aware pipelines that expose uncertainty and deliver traceable evidence. We note the evidence base may be affected by citation-lag from the inclusion thresholds and by English-only, five-library coverage. Funding: Advanced Research and Engineering Centre. Registration: Not registered.