Graph-Aware Late Chunking for Retrieval-Augmented Generation in Biomedical Literature

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) offers a well-established path to grounding large language model (LLM) outputs in external knowledge, yet the question of which retrieval strategy works best in a high-stakes domain such as biomedicine has not received the controlled, multi-metric treatment it deserves. This paper presents a systematic empirical comparison of five retrieval strategies -- Dense Vector Search, Hybrid BM25 + Dense retrieval, Cross-Encoder Reranking, Multi-Query Expansion, and Maximal Marginal Relevance (MMR) -- within a biomedical question-answering RAG pipeline. All strategies share a fixed generation model (GPT-4o-mini), a common vector store (ChromaDB), and OpenAI's text-embedding-3-small embeddings, ensuring that observed differences are attributable to retrieval alone. Evaluation is conducted on 250 question-answer pairs drawn from a preprocessed subset of the BioASQ benchmark (rag-mini-bioasq) using four DeepEval metrics: contextual precision, contextual recall, faithfulness, and answer relevancy, each reported with 95% confidence intervals. A no-context ablation is included as a lower bound. Cross-Encoder Reranking achieves the best composite score (0.827) and highest contextual precision (0.852), confirming that query-document interaction yields measurable retrieval gains. Multi-Query Expansion, despite its recall-oriented design, produces the weakest contextual precision (0.671), suggesting naive query diversification introduces retrieval noise. MMR sacrifices answer relevancy for diversity, while the Dense baseline (composite 0.822) falls within 0.005 points of the top strategy. All RAG conditions dramatically outperform the no-context ablation on answer relevancy (0.658-0.701 vs. 0.287), confirming the practical value of retrieval. The full pipeline, hyperparameters, and evaluation code are publicly available.

We present a controlled, large-scale evaluation of how corpus scale, document representation, and reranking affect the effectiveness and efficiency of biomedical Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems. Retrieval collections were progressively expanded while retaining the relevant source documents, enabling consistent comparisons across corpus sizes. We compared abstract, flat full-text, and hierarchical full-text representations across first-stage retrieval, reranking, and end-to-end multiple-choice question answering. Configurations selected on development data were evaluated on five external biomedical benchmarks and a held-out test set, while retrieval latency and index storage were measured to quantify operational cost. Performance patterns observed with small or controlled collections did not consistently persist as collections grew, and the usefulness of reranking depended on the corpus and retrieval setting. RAG improved three of four model configurations across the external benchmarks, with mean gains of up to 9.6 percentage points, and improved all four configurations on the held-out test set by 10.2-30.3 points. Abstract retrieval performed best when reference evidence was abstract-aligned, whereas full-text representations were generally more effective when richer evidence was needed. Hierarchical representation matched or outperformed flat full-text retrieval in most end-to-end comparisons while requiring 67% fewer indexed units and 44-56% less storage. These findings show that corpus scale should be treated as an explicit evaluation variable in biomedical RAG, and that the most appropriate design depends on evidence format, model behavior, and operational constraints.

Medical question answering is a high-stakes setting where factual errors can have serious consequences. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is widely viewed as a promising solution, and prior work has reported substantial gains for large medical QA models. We revisit this assumption across a broad range of open-weight instruction-tuned models spanning 7B to 72B parameters. Across five models, ten biomedical QA datasets, four retrieval methods, and four retrieval corpora, we find that retrieval yields only small and inconsistent improvements over a no-retrieval baseline, typically within 1-2 points. In contrast, the choice of backbone model has a much larger effect than the choice of retriever or corpus, and expert and layman retrieval sources perform similarly in most settings. These results suggest that the main bottleneck is not retrieval quality alone, but the model's limited ability to use retrieved evidence effectively.