Common Challenges
-
Retrieval Noise and Irrelevance
-
Retrieved chunks may contain:
-
Repeated information
-
Marginally relevant content
-
Contradictory or misleading data
-
-
Impact: Can confuse the generator or lead to hallucinated answers.
-
Solution: Reranking, metadata filters, and query rewriting.
-
-
Query Ambiguity and Under-Specification
-
User queries may be:
-
Too vague (“Tell me about the law”)
-
Using overloaded terms (e.g., “LLM” = Large Language Model or Master of Laws)
-
-
Impact: Poor retrieval due to mismatches.
-
Solution: Query rewriting, sub-query decomposition, classification modules.
-
-
Token and Context Limits
-
LLMs have a strict input token limit (e.g., 8k–100k tokens).
-
Long retrieved content must be:
-
Compressed
-
Summarized
-
Selected selectively
-
-
Impact: Truncated or low-quality input reduces answer quality.
-
-
Latency and Cost
-
RAG systems involve:
-
Document retrieval
-
Vector encoding
-
LLM inference
-
-
Impact: Increased response time and operational costs.
-
Solution: Caching, query classification (skip retrieval when not needed), smaller models.
-
-
Evaluation Complexity
-
Hard to measure performance consistently because:
-
Retrieval and generation quality are interdependent.
-
No universal benchmarks for all domains.
-
-
Solution: Combine automated and human-based evaluation (LLM-as-a-judge + manual review).
-
-
Domain-Specific Knowledge Integration
-
RAG struggles with:
-
Highly specialized vocabularies (e.g., legal citations, scientific formulas).
-
Tables, charts, and non-textual data.
-
-
Impact: Loss of critical context.
-
Solution: Use structured data (e.g., SQL + RAG), convert tables to text, or train with examples.
-
-
Security, Bias, and Misinformation
-
If the knowledge base is not curated:
- RAG may surface outdated, biased, or even harmful content.
-
Impact: Erosion of user trust or factual correctness.
-
Solution: Source filtering, content audits, feedback loops.
-