Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems commonly adopt retrieval fusion techniques such as multi-query retrieval and reciprocal rank fusion (RRF) to increase document recall, under the assumption that higher recall leads to better answer quality. While these methods show consistent gains in isolated retrieval benchmarks, their effectiveness under realistic production constraints remains underexplored. In this work, we evaluate retrieval fusion in a production-style RAG pipeline operating over an enterprise knowledge base, with fixed retrieval depth, re-ranking budgets, and latency constraints. Across multiple fusion configurations, we find that retrieval fusion does increase raw recall, but these gains are largely neutralized after re-ranking and truncation. In our setting, fusion variants fail to outperform single-query baselines on KB-level Top-k accuracy, with Hit@10 decreasing from 0.51 to 0.48 in several configurations. Moreover, fusion introduces additional latency overhead due to query rewriting and larger candidate sets, without corresponding improvements in downstream effectiveness. Our analysis suggests that recall-oriented fusion techniques exhibit diminishing returns once realistic re-ranking limits and context budgets are applied. We conclude that retrieval-level improvements do not reliably translate into end-to-end gains in production RAG systems, and argue for evaluation frameworks that jointly consider retrieval quality, system efficiency, and downstream impact.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Simplified overview of the evaluation pipeline.
Table 2
P
Method
Top-3
Δ pp
p
padj
P1
rrf_q1_q2
38.26%
+0.87
1.0000
1.0000
P1
rerank_on_rrf_q1
38.26%
+0.87
1.0000
1.0000
P2
rrf_q1_q2
40.87%
+4.35
0.1250
0.1667
P2
rerank_on_rrf_q1
39.13%
+2.61
0.2500
0.2500
P3
rrf_q1_q2
40.87%
+4.35
0.1250
0.1250
P3
rerank_on_rrf_q1
40.00%
+3.48
0.1250
0.1250
Table 4: Paired Top-3 significance vs baseline.
P
Ov@10
Jac@10
Un@10
Uniq@10
P1
2.87
0.279
13.20
7.82
P2
1.09
0.087
15.29
7.77
P3
1.10
0.094
14.99
7.77
Table 5: Exact Q1–Q2 overlap (Top-10).
Metric
Avg Time (s)
Fusion question generation
0.89
Baseline Retrieval time (Q1)
54.60
Retrieval time (Q1 + Q2 combined)
65.98
RRF time
0.012
Flashrank time ( K=10 )
0.26
Table 6: Average latency components across all datapoints.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Positions
Meaning
1…K
Q1 retrieval results
K+1…2K
Q2 retrieval results
Appendix
Table 7: K Retrieval Results
Format
source_kb::chunk=chunk_index
Example
KB123456::chunk=0
Appendix
Table 8: Source identifier format for KB chunk references.