#21 Nirant Kaasliwal on The Problems You Will Encounter With RAG At Scale And How To Prevent (or fix) Them | Search
Sep 12, 2024
auto_awesome
Nirant Kasliwal, an author known for his expertise in metadata extraction and evaluation strategies, shares invaluable insights on scaling Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems. He dives into common pitfalls such as the challenges posed by naive RAG and the sensitivity of LLMs to input. Strategies for query profiling, user personalization, and effective metadata extraction are discussed. Nirant emphasizes the importance of understanding user context to deliver precise information, ultimately aiming to enhance the efficiency of RAG implementations.
Smaller models between one to three billion parameters enable efficient experimentation and error detection over larger models for RAG systems.
Implementing a modular approach to retrieval enhances information extraction efficiency but requires careful balancing of latency and quality.
Deep dives
Key Insights on Model Scaling
Fine-tuning models within the one to three billion parameter range proves to be the most efficient approach for initial experimentation and tweaking, as opposed to larger models exceeding seven billion parameters. The discussion highlights that smaller models allow for quicker iterations and error detection without incurring significant computational costs. It also underscores that while larger models may possess emergent properties, like enhanced reasoning capabilities, the sweet spot for practicality lies in smaller frameworks. This creates an accessible balance between model performance and operational efficiency, particularly for newcomers to the field.
Enhancing Document Retrieval through Modularization
Implementing a modular approach to document retrieval and processing can significantly improve the efficiency of information extraction workflows. Instead of performing operations at ingestion time, conducting retrieval and OCR (Optical Character Recognition) processes on demand can increase design flexibility and efficiency. This method allows systems to discern which documents contain relevant information, thereby optimizing resource allocation and minimizing unnecessary data processing. However, this approach necessitates careful consideration of latency versus quality when assessing information retrieval performance.
The Limitations of Naive RAG Systems
Naive Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems often fail to provide accurate contextually relevant answers, primarily due to their inability to robustly handle various data types such as visual charts and tables. These systems frequently produce irrelevant results, particularly when they are not explicitly aware of the relationships between different data modalities. Challenges arise when embeddings do not capture the essential context needed for accurate retrieval, leading to erroneous associations in output. As a result, greater attention to the interplay between embeddings and conventional search methodologies may be necessary to improve retrieval accuracy.
Query Profiling and Error Mitigation Strategies
Effective query profiling can enhance system performance by clustering and analyzing queries to identify frequent failure patterns. By employing clustering methods and diagnostic metrics, developers can ascertain which query types perform poorly and modify their approach for improvement. Synthesizing user feedback and gathering meaningful insights from these queries can inform adjustments, allowing rapid iterations to the retrieval strategy. The inclusion of both synthetic and human-generated queries within evaluation datasets can further refine this process, ensuring a comprehensive approach to quality control and error correction.
Today we look at how we can get our RAG system ready for scale.
We discuss common problems and their solutions, when you introduce more users and more requests to your system.
For this we are joined by Nirant Kasliwal, the author of fastembed.
Nirant shares practical insights on metadata extraction, evaluation strategies, and emerging technologies like Colipali. This episode is a must-listen for anyone looking to level up their RAG implementations.
"Naive RAG has a lot of problems on the retrieval end and then there's a lot of problems on how LLMs look at these data points as well."
"The first 30 to 50% of gains are relatively quick. The rest 50% takes forever."
"You do not want to give the same answer about company's history to the co-founding CEO and the intern who has just joined."
"Embedding similarity is the signal on which you want to build your entire search is just not quite complete."
Key insights:
Naive RAG often fails due to limitations of embeddings and LLMs' sensitivity to input ordering.
Query profiling and expansion:
Use clustering and tools like latent Scope to identify problematic query types
Expand queries offline and use parallel searches for better results
Metadata extraction:
Extract temporal, entity, and other relevant information from queries
Use LLMs for extraction, with checks against libraries like Stanford NLP
User personalization:
Include user role, access privileges, and conversation history
Adapt responses based on user expertise and readability scores
Evaluation and improvement:
Create synthetic datasets and use real user feedback
Employ tools like DSPY for prompt engineering
Advanced techniques:
Query routing based on type and urgency
Use smaller models (1-3B parameters) for easier iteration and error spotting
Implement error handling and cross-validation for extracted metadata