REVIEW 5 cited by
RAG vs Fine-tuning: Pipelines, Tradeoffs, and a Case Study on Agriculture
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
There are two common ways in which developers are incorporating proprietary and domain-specific data when building applications of Large Language Models (LLMs): Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and Fine-Tuning. RAG augments the prompt with the external data, while fine-Tuning incorporates the additional knowledge into the model itself. However, the pros and cons of both approaches are not well understood. In this paper, we propose a pipeline for fine-tuning and RAG, and present the tradeoffs of both for multiple popular LLMs, including Llama2-13B, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4. Our pipeline consists of multiple stages, including extracting information from PDFs, generating questions and answers, using them for fine-tuning, and leveraging GPT-4 for evaluating the results. We propose metrics to assess the performance of different stages of the RAG and fine-Tuning pipeline. We conduct an in-depth study on an agricultural dataset. Agriculture as an industry has not seen much penetration of AI, and we study a potentially disruptive application - what if we could provide location-specific insights to a farmer? Our results show the effectiveness of our dataset generation pipeline in capturing geographic-specific knowledge, and the quantitative and qualitative benefits of RAG and fine-tuning. We see an accuracy increase of over 6 p.p. when fine-tuning the model and this is cumulative with RAG, which increases accuracy by 5 p.p. further. In one particular experiment, we also demonstrate that the fine-tuned model leverages information from across geographies to answer specific questions, increasing answer similarity from 47% to 72%. Overall, the results point to how systems built using LLMs can be adapted to respond and incorporate knowledge across a dimension that is critical for a specific industry, paving the way for further applications of LLMs in other industrial domains.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
DeepTRACE: Auditing Deep Research AI Systems for Tracking Reliability Across Citations and Evidence
An audit framework and empirical study showing that generative search engines and deep research agents frequently produce one-sided answers and weakly supported citations, with citation accuracy between 40 and 80%.
-
Knowledge Augmented Finetuning Matters in both RAG and Agent Based Dialog Systems
On MobileCS2, a GPT-2 finetuned with retrieved knowledge outperforms a prompted GPT-3.5 in both RAG and agent dialog systems, though the comparison is confounded.
-
LLM Web Dynamics: Tracing Model Collapse in a Network of LLMs
Under a shared retrieval-augmented memory, multiple LLMs' outputs converge to near-identical semantic answers, and the analogous Gaussian mixture system is proven to collapse.
-
A Practical Guide for Evaluating LLMs and LLM-Reliant Systems
A guide that organizes LLM evaluation into three pillars (datasets, metrics, and methodology) and introduces a '5 D's' checklist for building evaluation datasets.
-
Automatic Dataset Generation for Knowledge Intensive Question Answering Tasks
Fine-tuning Llama-3-8b and Mistral-7b-v0.3 on LLM-generated QA pairs from IBM Technotes can improve no-context QA scores over training on human-annotated TechQA data, but the evaluation may be inflated by test-documen...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.