RAG-end2end Architecture

• RAG-end2end architecture is a neural system that jointly fine-tunes both retrieval and generation components to improve open-domain question answering.
• It employs asynchronous passage embedding updates and FAISS index rebuilding to dynamically align learned representations with the knowledge base.
• Domain adaptation and auxiliary reconstruction signals boost performance by reducing hallucinations and significantly improving EM and F1 scores.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) end-to-end (RAG-end2end) architectures are neural systems for knowledge-intensive natural language processing tasks—particularly open-domain question answering (QA)—that are jointly optimized across both retrieval and generation stages. The distinctive property of RAG-end2end models is simultaneous fine-tuning of the retriever and generator, aligning the learned representations of both question and passage encoders while dynamically updating the knowledge base index during training. This end-to-end paradigm enables domain adaptation and improved downstream performance over standard RAG architectures, in which the retriever parameters are fixed during downstream learning (Siriwardhana et al., 2021, Siriwardhana et al., 2022, Rakin et al., 23 Oct 2024).

1. Architectural Composition and End-to-End Learning

A canonical RAG-end2end system contains the following differentiable modules:

• Input Encoder: Encodes the user question, typically with a pre-trained BERT or transformer encoder.
• Retriever (Dense Passage Retriever, DPR): Encodes both questions and candidate passages using twin BERT-based encoders—the question encoder and passage encoder. It retrieves top-$K$ passages from an external knowledge base via maximum inner-product search (MIPS) over dense embeddings.
• Generator: Autoregressive LLM or seq2seq transformer (e.g., BART), which conditions on the concatenation of the user query and the top-ranked retrievals to generate the answer.

The end-to-end fine-tuning objective is: $$\mathcal{L}_{RAG} = - \log \sum_{z \in \mathcal{Z}} p(z|x) \cdot p(y|x, z)$$ where $x$ is the question, $z$ indexes candidate documents, $p(z|x)$ represents the normalized retrieval score (softmax over inner products between question and passage embeddings), and $p(y|x, z)$ is the probability of generating answer $y$ conditioned on input $x$ and document $z$. During training, gradients flow through all three modules: question encoder, passage encoder, and generator. The passage encoder and the question encoder weights are jointly updated, allowing the retriever representation to align with the downstream end-task, i.e., answer generation (Siriwardhana et al., 2021, Siriwardhana et al., 2022, Rakin et al., 23 Oct 2024).

2. Asynchronous Knowledge Base Embedding and Index Management

The joint training of the retriever necessitates dynamic re-encoding of the knowledge base corpus:

• After every update to the passage encoder, all passage embeddings in the knowledge base become stale and must be recomputed to reflect the latest encoder parameters.
• To support this, RAG-end2end implementations employ an asynchronous multi-process infrastructure: while the main training loop updates model weights, auxiliary processes on CPUs/GPUs recompute passage embeddings and rebuild the FAISS index.
• Embeddings and indexes are swapped after every $N$ training steps, allowing the main training loop to continue using slightly stale retrievals for computational efficiency and scalability, similar to the regime used in REALM (Siriwardhana et al., 2022).
• Passage encoding and reindexing represent the primary system bottleneck for scaling RAG-end2end to million-scale knowledge bases.

3. Domain Adaptation and Auxiliary Supervision

A central advantage of RAG-end2end is its ability to adapt all components to new domains:

• Both question and passage encoders internalize domain-specific distributions, mapping questions and relevant document chunks to maximally align in latent space.
• Generator is co-adapted, enhancing answer relevance and faithfulness.
• RAG-end2end systems often employ auxiliary reconstruction signals during training. In addition to question-answer pairs, models are trained to reconstruct paraphrased statements or passage summaries by retrieving suitable evidence from the KB. Inputs for this auxiliary loss are marked with a special token (e.g., <p>) to distinguish from QA examples, as formalized by a conditional generation objective. This encourages the retriever to surface content appropriate for both answering and general statement synthesis (Siriwardhana et al., 2022, Rakin et al., 23 Oct 2024).

4. Performance Benchmarks and Empirical Impact

Aggregated results across multiple studies demonstrate that RAG-end2end architectures outpace classic RAG and other separately fine-tuned retriever+generator approaches for both general-domain and highly specialized QA tasks:

Model Variant	EM (SQuAD)	F1 (SQuAD)	EM (Domain)	F1 (Domain)	Hallucination (%)
RAG-Original	28.12	39.42	4.00	10.92	29
RAG-End2End	40.02	52.63	17.36	36.04	15
RAG-DPR-adapted	—	—	14.23	31.54	20
Fusion-in-Decoder	—	—	8.51	21.04	26

• Exact Match and F1 gains are consistent: e.g., absolute +12% on SQuAD (Siriwardhana et al., 2021) and +13.36% EM on HotelConvQA (Rakin et al., 23 Oct 2024).
• Retrieval accuracy: joint optimization leads to more frequent retrieval of the true supporting passage among top-$k$, especially in domain-shifted datasets.
• Hallucination reduction: domain-adapted end-to-end models reduce the rate of unsupported answers (as judged by human annotation) from 29% (vanilla RAG) to 15% (RAG-end2end with auxiliary loss), with supported answers climbing to 85% (Rakin et al., 23 Oct 2024).
• Auxiliary signal effect: addition of the auxiliary statement reconstruction task consistently improves retrieval and answer generation.
• Gains are robust across COVID-19, news, dialogue, and hospitality (HotelConvQA) benchmarks (Siriwardhana et al., 2022, Rakin et al., 23 Oct 2024).

5. Key Engineering Considerations and Implementation

Deploying RAG-end2end architectures requires addressing the following:

• Passage embedding throughput: updating all embeddings at each weight change is feasible for moderate-scale corpora (tens–hundreds of thousands). For million-scale, embedding updates and index refreshes are typically scheduled every $N$ steps ($N \approx 100$–$1,000$).
• Multiprocessing infrastructure: parallelization of passage encoding (across GPUs) and FAISS index updating (across CPUs) ensures the main QA training loop is not bottlenecked by I/O, as shown in HuggingFace's open source implementation (Siriwardhana et al., 2021).
• Knowledge base synchronization: swaps between the newly encoded embeddings and the FAISS index must be atomic to prevent retrieval-state inconsistency.
• Loss computation: properly marginalizing likelihoods across retrieved contexts, especially when sampled passages may vary in relevance and order per epoch.
• Hardware requirements: RAG-end2end confers a major increase in training time and compute resources, especially for specialized domains (Rakin et al., 23 Oct 2024).

6. Architectural Schematic

A standard dataflow for end-to-end RAG is:

[ Question ] | [ Question Encoder ] --> [ Retriever: Dense Passage Encoder (trainable) ] <--- Embedding+Index Update Loop | | | [ FAISS / ANN index ] | | [ Top-K Context Documents ] | \____________________/ | [ Generator (e.g. BART) ] | [ Output: Answer ]

During backpropagation, all components (question encoder, passage encoder, and generator) are updated. After every certain number of steps, passage embeddings and indexes are asynchronously refreshed.

7. Limitations and Broader Impacts

• Computation and Memory: Large external corpora, high embedding dimensionality, and frequent reindexing strain storage and memory bandwidth during training.
• Staleness–Efficiency Trade-off: Less frequent embedding/index refreshes have potential to induce a mismatch between encoders and retrievals; however, empirical results show stale gradients (updated every several hundred steps) do not harm convergence (Siriwardhana et al., 2021).
• Generalization vs. Specialization: While RAG-end2end adapts well within a domain, over-adaptation may reduce generalization when confronted with truly novel distributions. Properly tuning auxiliary losses and monitoring performance on held-out domains is required.
• Practicality: Despite open-source implementations (e.g., HuggingFace Transformers (Siriwardhana et al., 2021)), the scale and complexity of end-to-end training can be prohibitive for some real-world scenarios unless sufficient computational resources are available.

---

RAG-end2end architectures operationalize the principle of full differentiability from query through retrieval to generation, yielding demonstrably superior adaptability and performance for domain-specialized question answering relative to fixed-retriever RAG. This design has become a standard for evaluating retrieval-augmented models, particularly where domain-specificity and hallucination minimization are crucial (Siriwardhana et al., 2021, Siriwardhana et al., 2022, Rakin et al., 23 Oct 2024).