The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reinforcement Learning for Optimizing RAG for Domain Chatbots
Open accessAbstract
With the advent of Large Language Models (LLM), conversational assistants have become prevalent for domain use cases. LLMs acquire the ability to contextual question answering through training, and Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) further enables the bot to answer domain-specific questions. This paper describes a RAG-based approach for building a chatbot that answers user's queries using Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) data. We train an in-house retrieval embedding model using infoNCE loss, and experimental results demonstrate that the in-house model works significantly better than the well-known general-purpose public embedding model, both in terms of retrieval accuracy and Out-of-Domain (OOD) query detection. As an LLM, we use an open API-based paid ChatGPT model. We noticed that a previously retrieved-context could be used to generate an answer for specific patterns/sequences of queries (e.g., follow-up queries). Hence, there is a scope to optimize the number of LLM tokens and cost. Assuming a fixed retrieval model and an LLM, we optimize the number of LLM tokens using Reinforcement Learning (RL). Specifically, we propose a policy-based model external to the RAG, which interacts with the RAG pipeline through policy actions and updates the policy to optimize the cost. The policy model can perform two actions: to fetch FAQ context or skip retrieval. We use the open API-based GPT-4 as the reward model. We then train a policy model using policy gradient on multiple training chat sessions. As a policy model, we experimented with a public gpt-2 model and an in-house BERT model. With the proposed RL-based optimization combined with similarity threshold, we are able to achieve significant cost savings while getting a slightly improved accuracy. Though we demonstrate results for the FAQ chatbot, the proposed RL approach is generic and can be experimented with any existing RAG pipeline.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Despite their success in advancing various domains, LLM agents often utilize and store private information, causing potential privacy risks, particularly in privacy-intensive applications such as healthcare.”
From Unveiling Privacy Risks in LLM Agent Memory (2025) · cites this paper as Kulkarni et al., 2024
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks
Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., Küttler, H., Lewis, M., Yih, W.-T., Rocktäschel, T., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.11401 · Cited by 3,101
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- 2023. Augmented Embeddings for Custom Retrievals. arXiv:2310.05380. · arXiv
- Ahmed, Z.; Roux, N. L.; Norouzi, M.; and Schuurmans, D. 2019. Understanding the impact of entropy on policy opti- mization. arXiv:1811.11214. · arXiv
- Asai, A.; Wu, Z.; Wang, Y.; Sil, A.; and Hajishirzi, H. 2023. Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Cri- tique through Self-Reflection. arXiv:2310.11511. · arXiv
- Goyal, P.; Caron, M.; Lefaudeux, B.; Xu, M.; Wang, P.; Pai, V.; Singh, M.; Liptchinsky, V.; Misra, I.; Joulin, A.; and Bojanowski, P. 2021. Self-supervised Pretraining of Visual Features in the Wild. arXiv:2103.01988. · arXiv
- Hackl, V.; Müller, A. E.; Granitzer, M.; and Sailer, M. 2023. Is GPT-4 a reliable rater? Evaluating Consistency in GPT-4 Text Ratings. arXiv:2308.02575. · arXiv
- Li, H.; Su, Y.; Cai, D.; Wang, Y.; and Liu, L. 2022. A sur- vey on retrieval-augmented text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.01110. · arXiv
- Liu, N. F.; Lin, K.; Hewitt, J.; Paranjape, A.; Bevilacqua, M.; Petroni, F.; and Liang, P. 2023a. Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts. arXiv:2307.03172. · arXiv
- Liu, Y.; Iter, D.; Xu, Y.; Wang, S.; Xu, R.; and Zhu, C. 2023b. G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment. arXiv:2303.16634. · arXiv
- Shao, Z.; Gong, Y.; Shen, Y.; Huang, M.; Duan, N.; and Chen, W. 2023. Enhancing Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models with Iterative Retrieval-Generation Syn- ergy. arXiv:2305.15294. · arXiv
- van den Oord, A.; Li, Y.; and Vinyals, O. 2019. Rep- resentation Learning with Contrastive Predictive Coding. arXiv:1807.03748. · arXiv
- Wang, L.; Yang, N.; Huang, X.; Jiao, B.; Yang, L.; Jiang, D.; Majumder, R.; and Wei, F. 2022. Text Em- beddings by Weakly-Supervised Contrastive Pre-training. arXiv:2212.03533. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Unveiling Privacy Risks in LLM Agent Memory
Wang, B., He, W., Zeng, S., Xiang, Z., Xing, Y., Tang, J., & He, P. (2025) · Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1227 · Cited by 24
Human-inspired Perspectives: A Survey on AI Long-term Memory
He, Z., Lin, W., Zheng, H., Zhang, F., Jones, M. W., Aitchison, L., Xu, X., Liu, M., Kristensson, P. O., & Shen, J. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.00489 · Cited by 3
“The second approach involves using reinforcement learning [19, 211] to optimize the retrieval model.”
Metadata
- Authors
- Kulkarni, M., Tangarajan, P., Kim, K., & Trivedi, A.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2401.06800
- OpenAlex
- W4390961148
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Keywords
- retrieval-augmented generation, frequently asked questions, InfoNCE loss, policy gradient, similarity threshold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review