Retrieval-augmented generation models augment knowledge encoded in a language model by providing additional relevant external knowledge (context) during generation. Although it has been shown that the quantity and quality of context impact the performance of retrieval-augmented generation models during inference, limited research explores how these characteristics affect model training. This paper explores how context quantity and quality during model training affect the performance of Fusion-in-Decoder (FiD), the state-of-the-art retrieval-augmented generation model, in extractive open-domain question answering tasks. Experimental results suggest that FiD models overfit to context quality during training and show suboptimal performance when evaluated on different context quality. Through the experimental results, we also reveal FiD models trained with different context quality have different cross-attention distribution patterns. Specifically, as context quality during training increases, FiD models tend to attend more uniformly to each passage in context. Finally, based on these observations, we propose a method to mitigate overfitting to specific context quality by introducing bias to the cross-attention distribution, which we demonstrate to be effective in improving the performance of FiD models on different context quality.

Fusion-in-Decoder (FiD) is an effective retrieval-augmented language model applied across a variety of open-domain tasks, such as question answering, fact checking, etc. In FiD, supporting passages are first retrieved and then processed using a generative model (Reader), which can cause a significant bottleneck in decoding time, particularly with long outputs. In this work, we analyze the contribution and necessity of all the retrieved passages to the performance of reader models, and propose eliminating some of the retrieved information, at the token level, that might not contribute essential information to the answer generation process. We demonstrate that our method can reduce run-time by up to 62.2%, with only a 2% reduction in performance, and in some cases, even improve the performance results.