Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
38 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
41 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
7 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

XRAG: eXamining the Core -- Benchmarking Foundational Components in Advanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation (2412.15529v2)

Published 20 Dec 2024 in cs.CL and cs.AI

Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) synergizes the retrieval of pertinent data with the generative capabilities of LLMs, ensuring that the generated output is not only contextually relevant but also accurate and current. We introduce XRAG, an open-source, modular codebase that facilitates exhaustive evaluation of the performance of foundational components of advanced RAG modules. These components are systematically categorized into four core phases: pre-retrieval, retrieval, post-retrieval, and generation. We systematically analyse them across reconfigured datasets, providing a comprehensive benchmark for their effectiveness. As the complexity of RAG systems continues to escalate, we underscore the critical need to identify potential failure points in RAG systems. We formulate a suite of experimental methodologies and diagnostic testing protocols to dissect the failure points inherent in RAG engineering. Subsequently, we proffer bespoke solutions aimed at bolstering the overall performance of these modules. Our work thoroughly evaluates the performance of advanced core components in RAG systems, providing insights into optimizations for prevalent failure points.

An Academic Overview of XRAG: Benchmarking RAG Systems

The paper "XRAG: eXamining the Core - Benchmarking Foundational Components in Advanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation" presents an open-source modular toolkit designed to systematically evaluate Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems. RAG systems couple retrieval of relevant information with the generation capabilities of LLMs to deliver semantically coherent and contextually relevant outputs. The research contributes to the field through XRAG, a codebase aimed at benchmarking the core components of these systems efficiently and systematically.

The paper begins by categorizing RAG systems into four distinct phases: pre-retrieval, retrieval, post-retrieval, and generation. This modular approach is pivotal because each phase critically influences the quality and relevance of the generated output. XRAG modularizes these components, thereby offering an exhaustive evaluation tool for each phase's foundational methodology.

Core Contributions

Modular RAG Process:

XRAG enables a modularized approach to RAG, facilitating fine-grained comparative analysis across distinct components. The paper discusses how the modularity of XRAG covers three query-rewriting strategies, six retrieval units, three post-processing techniques, and multiple generators from various vendors including OpenAI, Meta, and Google. This modular framework is instrumental for researchers looking to dissect and optimize specific components of RAG systems.

Benchmark Datasets and Evaluation Framework:

The authors consolidate three prevalent datasets—HotpotQA, DropQA, and NaturalQA—into a unified format, enhancing uniformity and reusability. This standardization allows for a dual assessment of retrieval and generation capabilities within diverse RAG systems. XRAG supports conventional evaluations through metrics such as F1, MRR, and NDCG, alongside cognitive assessments leveraging LLMs for nuanced interpretation beyond token matching.

Systematic Diagnostics of Failure Points:

RAG systems are prone to specific failure points such as ranking confusion or generation of inaccurate outputs due to wrong contextual informations. XRAG's methodological framework allows for the identification and rectification of these failures. By implementing solutions such as expressive prompt engineering or integrating reranking models, XRAG aims to mitigate common pitfalls encountered in RAG tasks.

Evaluation and Results

Experiments conducted using XRAG demonstrate robust performance across various question-answering tasks. The retrieval quality, assessed using the conventional retrieval evaluation metrics, indicates that the system performs adequately on datasets like HotpotQA and NaturalQA but faces challenges with DropQA, likely due to the unique characteristics of its dataset. The generation quality, as evaluated via Cognitive LLM Evaluation, shows promising results, indicating XRAG's suitability for practical and research applications in RAG tasks.

Implications and Future Prospects

The significance of XRAG lies in its potential to streamline RAG workflows, thereby reducing the complexity involved in deploying retrieval-enhanced generative models. The standardized benchmarks and comprehensive diagnostic tools offer a foundation for ongoing development in retrieval-augmented systems. Future developments might focus on integrating additional datasets and expanding support for varied RAG applications like OpenQA and long-form QA.

The toolkit acknowledges current limitations, including the diversity constraints of RAG methods and the absence of training support for RAG components. By addressing these areas, XRAG could evolve into an even more comprehensive toolkit, fostering a broader spectrum of research and applications in retrieval-augmented generation.

In conclusion, this paper presents a structured approach to understanding and improving RAG systems. By offering insights into component analysis and failure diagnostics, XRAG empowers researchers to enhance the performance and reliability of retrieval-augmented generative tasks.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (21)
  1. Qianren Mao (13 papers)
  2. Yangyifei Luo (5 papers)
  3. Jinlong Zhang (21 papers)
  4. Hanwen Hao (2 papers)
  5. Zhilong Cao (1 paper)
  6. Xiaolong Wang (243 papers)
  7. Xiao Guan (2 papers)
  8. Zhenting Huang (1 paper)
  9. Weifeng Jiang (12 papers)
  10. Shuyu Guo (3 papers)
  11. Zhentao Han (2 papers)
  12. Qili Zhang (4 papers)
  13. Siyuan Tao (1 paper)
  14. Yujie Liu (34 papers)
  15. Junnan Liu (9 papers)
  16. Zhixing Tan (20 papers)
  17. Jie Sun (115 papers)
  18. Bo Li (1107 papers)
  19. Xudong Liu (41 papers)
  20. Richong Zhang (47 papers)
X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com