Evaluating the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Demonstration Retrievers in RAG for Coding Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enhances Large Language Models (LLMs) by integrating external knowl-edge bases, achieving state-of-the-art results in various coding tasks. The core of RAG is retrieving demonstration examples, which is essential to balance effectiveness (generation quality) and efficiency (retrieval time) for optimal performance. However, the high-dimensional nature of code representations and large knowledge bases often create efficiency bottlenecks, which are overlooked in previous research. This paper systematically evalu-ates the efficiency-effectiveness trade-off of retrievers across three coding tasks: Program Synthesis, Commit Message Generation, and Assertion Generation. We examined six retrievers: two sparse (BM25 and BM25L) and four dense retrievers, including one exhaustive dense retriever (SBERT's Semantic Search) and three approximate dense retrievers (ANNOY, LSH, and HNSW). Our findings show that while BM25 excels in effectiveness, it suffers in efficiency as the knowledge base grows beyond 103entries. In large-scale retrieval, efficiency differences become more pronounced, with approximate dense retrievers offering the greatest gains. For instance, in Commit Generation task, HNSW achieves a 44x speed up, while only with a 1.74% drop in RougeL compared with BM25. Our results also demonstrate that increasing the number of demonstrations in the prompt does not consistently enhance effectiveness. Instead, it can increase latency and lead to incorrect outputs. Our findings provide valuable insights for practitioners aiming to build efficient and effective RAG systems for coding tasks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".