Fine-Tuning Large Language Models and Evaluating Retrieval Methods for Improved Question Answering on Building Codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building codes are regulations that establish standards for the design, construction, and safety of buildings to ensure structural integrity, fire protection, and accessibility. They are often extensive, complex, and subject to frequent updates, making manual querying challenging and time-consuming. Key difficulties include navigating large volumes of text, interpreting technical language, and identifying relevant clauses across different sections. A potential solution is to build a Question-Answering (QA) system that answers user queries based on building codes. Among the various methods for building a QA system, Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) stands out in performance. RAG consists of two components: a retriever and a language model. This study focuses on identifying a suitable retriever method for building codes and optimizing the generational capability of the language model using fine-tuning techniques. We conducted a detailed evaluation of various retrieval methods by performing the retrieval on the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) and explored the impact of domain-specific fine-tuning on several language models using the dataset derived from NBCC. Our analysis included a comparative assessment of different retrievers and the performance of both pre-trained and fine-tuned models to determine the efficacy and domain-specific adaptation of language models using fine-tuning on the NBCC dataset. Experimental results showed that Elasticsearch proved to be the most robust retriever among all. The findings also indicate that fine-tuning language models on an NBCC-specific dataset can enhance their ability to generate contextually relevant responses. When combined with context retrieved by a powerful retriever like Elasticsearch, this improvement in LLM performance can optimize the RAG system, enabling it to better navigate the complexities of the NBCC.
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 | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".