对比RAG微调策略,发现效果相近但成本差异大。
A Comparison of Independent and Joint Fine-tuning Strategies for Retrieval-Augmented Generation
- 分别尝试独立、联合和两阶段微调,比较性能与开销。
- 各类策略在EM和F1上提升相似,约10-15个百分点。
- 选择策略取决于是否有上下文标签及是否需调学习率。
检索增强生成(RAG)是一种流行的问答框架,由两个大语言模型组成:嵌入模型从数据库中检索与问题相关的上下文文档,生成模型则利用检索到的上下文生成答案。两者均可微调以提升RAG在新任务上的表现,但存在多种微调策略,各有成本与收益。本文评估并对比了独立、联合及两阶段微调等策略。实验显示,所有策略在EM和F1生成质量指标上均取得相近提升(约10–15个百分点),但计算成本差异显著。结论表明,最优微调策略取决于训练数据是否包含上下文标签,以及是否需要对嵌入模型和生成模型的学习率进行网格搜索。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
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, Retrieval augmented generation (RAG) is a popular framework for question answering that is powered by two large language models (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.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。