Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 150 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 46 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 26 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 28 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 80 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 211 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 435 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 35 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

A Comparison of Independent and Joint Fine-tuning Strategies for Retrieval-Augmented Generation (2510.01600v1)

Published 2 Oct 2025 in cs.CL and cs.AI

Abstract: A Comparison of Independent and Joint Fine-tuning Strategies for Retrieval-Augmented Generation Download PDF Neal Gregory Lawton, Alfy Samuel, Anoop Kumar, Daben Liu Published: 20 Aug 2025, Last Modified: 17 Sept 2025EMNLP 2025 FindingsConference, Publication Chairs, AuthorsRevisionsBibTeXCC BY 4.0 Keywords: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), LLMs, Fine-tuning, Question Answering, Joint fine-tuning TL;DR: We evaluate and compare strategies for fine-tuning Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) pipelines, including independent fine-tuning, joint fine-tuning, and two-phase fine-tuning. Abstract: Retrieval augmented generation (RAG) is a popular framework for question answering that is powered by two LLMs: an embedding model that retrieves context documents from a database that are relevant to a given question, and a generator model that uses the retrieved context to generate an answer to the question. Both the embedding and generator models can be fine-tuned to increase performance of a RAG pipeline on a new task, but multiple fine-tuning strategies exist with different costs and benefits. In this paper, we evaluate and compare several RAG fine-tuning strategies, including independent, joint, and two-phase fine-tuning. In our experiments, we observe that all of these strategies achieve about equal improvement in EM and F1 generation quality metrics, although they have significantly different computational costs. We conclude the optimal fine-tuning strategy to use depends on whether the training dataset includes context labels and whether a grid search over the learning rates for the embedding and generator models is required.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Open Questions

We haven't generated a list of open questions mentioned in this paper yet.

Lightbulb Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets

This paper has been mentioned in 1 tweet and received 0 likes.

Upgrade to Pro to view all of the tweets about this paper: