Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has recently emerged as a promising solution for incorporating up-to-date or domain-specific knowledge into large language models (LLMs) and improving LLM factuality, but is predominantly studied in English-only settings. In this work, we consider RAG in the multilingual setting (mRAG), i.e. with user queries and the datastore in 13 languages, and investigate which components and with which adjustments are needed to build a well-performing mRAG pipeline, that can be used as a strong baseline in future works. Our findings highlight that despite the availability of high-quality off-the-shelf multilingual retrievers and generators, task-specific prompt engineering is needed to enable generation in user languages. Moreover, current evaluation metrics need adjustments for multilingual setting, to account for variations in spelling named entities. The main limitations to be addressed in future works include frequent code-switching in non-Latin alphabet languages, occasional fluency errors, wrong reading of the provided documents, or irrelevant retrieval. We release the code for the resulting mRAG baseline pipeline at https://github.com/naver/bergen, Documentation: https://github.com/naver/bergen/blob/main/documentations/multilingual.md.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation allows to enhance Large Language Models with external knowledge. In response to the recent popularity of generative LLMs, many RAG approaches have been proposed, which involve an intricate number of different configurations such as evaluation datasets, collections, metrics, retrievers, and LLMs. Inconsistent benchmarking poses a major challenge in comparing approaches and understanding the impact of each component in the pipeline. In this work, we study best practices that lay the groundwork for a systematic evaluation of RAG and present BERGEN, an end-to-end library for reproducible research standardizing RAG experiments. In an extensive study focusing on QA, we benchmark different state-of-the-art retrievers, rerankers, and LLMs. Additionally, we analyze existing RAG metrics and datasets.

We present a detailed comparison of two types of sequence to sequence models trained to conduct a compositional task. The models are architecturally identical at inference time, but differ in the way that they are trained: our baseline model is trained with a task-success signal only, while the other model receives additional supervision on its attention mechanism (Attentive Guidance), which has shown to be an effective method for encouraging more compositional solutions. We first confirm that the models with attentive guidance indeed infer more compositional solutions than the baseline, by training them on the lookup table task presented by Liska et al. (2019). We then do an in-depth analysis of the structural differences between the two model types, focusing in particular on the organisation of the parameter space and the hidden layer activations and find noticeable differences in both these aspects. Guided networks focus more on the components of the input rather than the sequence as a whole and develop small functional groups of neurons with specific purposes that use their gates more selectively. Results from parameter heat maps, component swapping and graph analysis also indicate that guided networks exhibit a more modular structure with a small number of specialized, strongly connected neurons.