OpenRAG: Optimizing RAG End-to-End via In-Context Retrieval Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we analyze and empirically show that the learned relevance for conventional information retrieval (IR) scenarios may be inconsistent in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) scenarios. To bridge this gap, we introduce OpenRAG, a RAG framework that is optimized end-to-end by tuning the retriever to capture in-context relevance, enabling adaptation to the diverse and evolving needs. Extensive experiments across a wide range of tasks demonstrate that OpenRAG, by tuning a retriever end-to-end, leads to a consistent improvement of 4.0% over the original retriever, consistently outperforming existing state-of-the-art retrievers by 2.1%. Additionally, our results indicate that for some tasks, an end-to-end tuned 0.2B retriever can achieve improvements that surpass those of RAG-oriented or instruction-tuned 8B large language models (LLMs), highlighting the cost-effectiveness of our approach in enhancing RAG systems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".