Observations on Building RAG Systems for Technical Documents

AI-generated keywords: RAG systems

AI-generated Key Points

  • Chunk length has a significant impact on retriever embeddings in RAG systems for technical documents.
  • Relying solely on similarity scores to augment the generator may not always be reliable.
  • Abbreviations and a large number of related paragraphs are relevant for long-form Question Answering (QA) in technical documents.
  • Future work includes incorporating RAG metrics proposed by Es et al. and Chen et al., developing effective methods, and evaluation metrics for addressing follow-up questions within the RAG framework.
  • Experiments focused on IEEE Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications, as well as the IEEE Standard Glossary of Stationary Battery Terminology.
  • Observations showed that sentence embeddings become less reliable with increasing chunk size, leading to spurious similarities that were manually validated for accuracy.
  • When both query and queried document exceeded 200 words, similarity distributions exhibited a bimodal nature.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Sumit Soman, Sujoy Roychowdhury

Published as a Tiny Paper at ICLR 2024
License: CC BY 4.0

Abstract: Retrieval augmented generation (RAG) for technical documents creates challenges as embeddings do not often capture domain information. We review prior art for important factors affecting RAG and perform experiments to highlight best practices and potential challenges to build RAG systems for technical documents.

Submitted to arXiv on 31 Mar. 2024

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2404.00657v1

, , , , The study on building Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) systems for technical documents revealed the significant impact of chunk length on retriever embeddings. It was also noted that relying solely on similarity scores to augment the generator may not always be reliable. The use of abbreviations and a large number of related paragraphs were found to be particularly relevant for long-form Question Answering (QA) in technical documents. As part of future work, the researchers plan to incorporate RAG metrics proposed by Es et al. and Chen et al. to inform retrieval strategies and develop effective methods and evaluation metrics for addressing follow-up questions within the RAG framework. The experiments conducted focused on IEEE Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications, as well as the IEEE Standard Glossary of Stationary Battery Terminology. By examining the influence of chunk length, keyword-based search, and rank of retrieved results in the RAG pipeline, the researchers aimed to gain a better understanding of factors affecting retrieval performance in technical document QA. Observations from the study showed that sentence embeddings become less reliable with increasing chunk size, as evidenced by a Kernel Density Estimate plot displaying high similarity scores for longer sentences. The distribution of higher similarities for larger lengths suggested spurious similarities, which were manually validated for accuracy. Additionally, it was highlighted that when both query and queried document exceeded 200 words, similarity distributions exhibited a bimodal nature. Overall, this research provides valuable insights into optimizing RAG systems for technical documents by addressing key challenges such as chunk length impact on retriever embeddings and reliability issues with generator augmentation strategies based on similarity scores. Future work will focus on leveraging advanced RAG metrics and developing innovative methods to enhance question answering capabilities within technical document contexts.
Created on 13 Sep. 2024

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.