Improving LLM Performance - Scaling vs. Retrieval vs. Fine-Tuning

Browse all previoiusly published AI Tutorials here.

Table of Contents

• Improving LLM Performance - Scaling vs. Retrieval vs. Fine-Tuning

• Scaling Up Model Size - Accuracy Gains vs. Cost

• Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) External Knowledge for Small Models

• Fine-Tuning and PEFT Customizing Models Efficiently

• Inference Efficiency and Cost Optimizations

• Comparing Approaches and Industry Practices

How do you decide whether to scale up the model

Scaling Up Model Size - Accuracy Gains vs. Cost

One straightforward way to boost a large language model’s performance is to scale up the number of parameters. Larger models (e.g. moving from GPT-3’s ~175B to GPT-4-scale, or LLaMA 7B to 70B) generally exhibit better language understanding and reasoning abilities. However, this comes with diminishing returns and steep costs. Training and updating ever-bigger models becomes exponentially expensive in compute, data, and time – constant retraining is impractical given exponentially increasing LLM sizes and the infrastructure cost involved ( Towards Understanding Systems Trade-offs in Retrieval-Augmented Generation Model Inference). For example, industry-scale models like GPT-4 or Google’s Gemini are extremely costly to train and deploy, which limits frequent updates. In practice, only a few tech companies can afford to push to trillions of parameters. Moreover, larger models incur higher inference costs (more FLOPs per query) and latency. There is active research into balancing model depth vs. width for efficiency: recent findings suggest that shallow, wide models may encode factual knowledge well, while deeper models are needed for complex reasoning (Rotational Labs | Recapping PyTorch: Key Takeaways from the 2024 Conference). This implies that simply scaling size isn’t always the most efficient path to “smarter” models if the task is primarily knowledge retrieval. In summary, scaling up yields quality improvements but with heavy computational cost vs. accuracy trade-offs – each additional gain in accuracy or capability can come at a disproportionately high cost in model size and compute.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) External Knowledge for Small Models

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a compelling alternative (or complement) to brute-force scaling. In a RAG setup, an LLM is paired with an external knowledge datastore (e.g. a vector database or search index). At query time, the system retrieves relevant text chunks and feeds them into the model’s context to inform its answer. This allows a comparatively smaller base model to leverage a large corpus of information. Crucially, RAG enables keeping the model’s knowledge up-to-date without retraining – new data can be added to the database continually . Studies have shown that augmenting prompts with retrieved context can “significantly improve the accuracy and reliability” of LLM responses on knowledge-intensive tasks . For instance, Bing Chat applies RAG (web search results) on top of GPT-4, which Microsoft notes makes it more effective than raw GPT-4 for factual queries (at the expense of higher serving cost) (Microsoft Says Bing Chat Outperforms GPT-4) . The major trade-off is runtime complexity: RAG introduces additional steps – encoding the query, searching the index, and processing extra context – before generation. This can slow down inference; retrieving and reading external text often doubles the time to first token and demands substantial memory for indexes . Recent research provides a detailed taxonomy of these RAG system trade-offs, highlighting that naive RAG pipelines can suffer latencies nearly 2× higher and large memory overhead (datastores consuming terabytes) if not optimized . On the upside, a well-designed RAG system can actually be more cost-effective than an enormous model that tries to absorb all knowledge internally. A 2024 industry study found that RAG systems paired with smaller LLMs outperformed giant long-context models on enterprise document QA benchmarks, while using far fewer GPU resources (Comparison: RAG vs. Long Context Window models) . In other words, fetching “needles from a haystack” with a smart retrieval component and a modest model can beat a monolithic model with a context window of millions of tokens . RAG is thus attractive for use cases like customer support or corporate knowledge bases, where deploying a 175B+ model is impractical, and domain data is too large or dynamic to bake into the model weights. To mitigate RAG’s performance penalties, there have been recent breakthroughs in retrieval-augmented architectures. For example, PipeRAG proposes an algorithm/system co-design to pipeline retrieval and generation for lower latency . Techniques like RAGCache cache frequent retrieval results to avoid redundant searches , and “speculative decoding” methods attempt to predict and pre-fetch relevant knowledge, overlapping retrieval with generation to save time . While still early, these advances are shrinking the gap between RAG-augmented systems and fully self-contained models. Overall, RAG offers a powerful way to inject up-to-date knowledge into LLMs and achieve high accuracy without massive model growth – the trade-off being a more complex, multi-component system that requires careful engineering for speed and scalability.

Fine-Tuning and PEFT Customizing Models Efficiently

Another approach to improve LLM performance is fine-tuning the model on task-specific or domain-specific data. Fine-tuning can significantly boost accuracy on a target task (e.g. coding, medical QA, enterprise documents) by adapting a general-purpose model to the domain. Traditionally, fine-tuning a multi-billion parameter model meant updating all its weights – which is extremely resource-intensive. However, recent advances in parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) have made this process much more tractable. One popular PEFT technique is Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA), which adds a few low-rank trainable weight matrices to the model instead of modifying all parameters. LoRA drastically reduces the number of trainable parameters needed for adaptation (Finetune LLMs on your own consumer hardware using tools from PyTorch and Hugging Face ecosystem | PyTorch). The original model’s weights remain frozen, and small LoRA “adapter” weights are learned to capture the task-specific adjustments. This has several advantages: the memory and compute requirements drop by orders of magnitude, and one can maintain multiple lightweight LoRA adapters for different tasks on the same base model . In practice, models fine-tuned with LoRA achieve performance comparable to fully fine-tuned models on the target task . Another benefit is that merging the LoRA adapters into the base model for inference adds essentially no latency or computational overhead . These traits have led to wide community adoption of LoRA (e.g. to fine-tune LLaMA-2 for chat, coding, etc., without needing a server farm). Building on LoRA, researchers introduced QLoRA (Quantized LoRA) in 2023, which pushes efficiency even further. QLoRA freezes the base model in 4-bit quantized form during fine-tuning, combining quantization with LoRA adapters. Impressively, QLoRA was shown to “match full 16-bit fine-tuning performance across all model scales while reducing memory footprint by >90%”, enabling finetuning of a 65B model on a single GPU . In fact, using QLoRA, the Guanaco model (fine-tuned from LLaMA) reached about 99% of ChatGPT’s quality on a Vicuna benchmark after just 24 hours of training on one 48GB GPU ( QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMs). This represents a breakthrough in cost-performance – fine-tuning can yield dramatic accuracy gains without the need for massive computing infrastructure. Beyond LoRA/QLoRA, there’s a growing toolkit of PEFT methods (adapters, prompt tuning, prefix tuning, etc.) collectively aimed at making LLM adaptation accessible. These techniques allow industry practitioners to specialize large models for their use cases (finance, law, customer service, etc.) at relatively low cost. For example, an enterprise might take an open 7B–70B model and fine-tune it on proprietary data via PEFT instead of paying to use a 175B generic model. The trade-offs here involve maintenance and scope: fine-tuning is ideal when the target domain or task is well-defined and the model needs a permanent skill or knowledge upgrade. It may not be as suitable for continuously changing facts (where RAG can dynamically fetch information). Also, each fine-tuned variant must be managed separately (though approaches like LoRA allow keeping the base model and swapping in adapters as needed). In summary, advanced fine-tuning techniques offer a relatively low-cost path to boost accuracy on specific tasks by leveraging existing LLMs, avoiding the need to train from scratch or vastly increase model size ( Towards Understanding Systems Trade-offs in Retrieval-Augmented Generation Model Inference).

Inference Efficiency and Cost Optimizations

Whether one scales up models, uses RAG, fine-tunes, or all of the above, inference efficiency is critical for practical deployment. A key goal is to improve throughput and reduce latency/$ cost per query without sacrificing accuracy. One major lever is quantization – running the model at lower numerical precision (e.g. int8 or int4 instead of 16-bit floats). Quantization can dramatically cut memory usage and computation for LLMs (QRazor: Reliable and Effortless 4-bit LLM Quantization by Significant Data Razoring). Remarkably, with proper techniques, the loss in accuracy can be minimal. Recent studies show that 8-bit and 4-bit quantized LLMs often retain over 99% of the accuracy of the full-precision model on benchmarks (500K+ Evaluations by Neural Magic Show Quantized LLMs Retain Accuracy). In other words, a model can be compressed to half or quarter precision and still output almost the same results, while using far less hardware resources. Techniques like GPTQ (for post-training quantization) and activation-aware quantization have enabled “near-lossless” 4-bit performance on models like LLaMA. For instance, a 2025 approach, QRazor, achieves “nearly identical accuracy to the original model” even when quantizing weights, activations, and memory cache to 4-bit . This means companies can serve models at a fraction of the cost by leveraging integer math on modern GPUs – indeed, 4-bit inference is expected to become common on new GPU generations (Welcome to LLMflation - LLM inference cost is going down fast ⬇️ | Andreessen Horowitz). Besides quantization, optimized architectures and libraries are improving inference efficiency. Transformer models can be sparsified or use optimized attention mechanisms (like FlashAttention) to speed up processing of long sequences. Systems like vLLM and Hugging Face’s Text Generation Inference leverage smart batching and memory management to increase throughput (amortizing the heavy cost of the attention KV cache across many parallel requests). There is also interest in mixture-of-experts (MoE) models which keep overall parameter count high but activate only a small subset of weights per token, reducing compute per inference. These approaches strive to get “the best of both worlds”: high model capacity when needed, but cheaper inference on average. The net effect of these optimizations is evident in rapidly dropping costs. An analysis by Andreessen Horowitz in late 2024 dubbed this trend “LLMflation”, noting that for an equivalent LLM performance level, inference cost has been dropping by roughly 10× per year . For example, what cost $60 per million tokens in 2021 (GPT-3 level) fell to around $0.06 by 2024 for similar performance . This exponential decline is driven by better hardware, better algorithms, and techniques like model compression and distillation. It means that even as models get larger and more capable, the effective cost-per-query is improving significantly, making deployments more economically feasible over time .

Comparing Approaches and Industry Practices

In practice, improving LLMs often involves a combination of scaling, retrieval augmentation, and fine-tuning, rather than relying on one alone. Each approach has distinct advantages and drawbacks:

• Scaling Up Models: Increases general capability and emergent reasoning skills. Larger models tend to achieve higher accuracy on a wide range of tasks without task-specific training. However, model size scaling has steep diminishing returns and very high training/inference costs ( Towards Understanding Systems Trade-offs in Retrieval-Augmented Generation Model Inference). It also makes model updates difficult (retraining a 100B+ model for new data is usually untenable). This path is favored by cutting-edge AI labs for pushing state-of-the-art, but rarely by smaller organizations.

• Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): Enhances a model’s performance on knowledge-intensive queries by providing relevant context at runtime. This allows a smaller or medium-sized model to outperform a much larger one on factual tasks, as demonstrated by recent benchmarks (Comparison: RAG vs. Long Context Window models). RAG keeps responses up-to-date and reduces the need to bake all facts into the model’s weights . The trade-off is added system complexity and latency – each query requires database lookups, which can slow down response and introduce failure points. Engineering a high-quality retriever and maintaining the knowledge index are non-trivial efforts. In industry, RAG is popular for applications like customer support bots, search engines, and any scenario where the answer needs to be grounded in a large external document set (e.g. using a vector DB of company data rather than relying solely on the model).

• Fine-Tuning (Including PEFT like LoRA/QLoRA): Tailors a general model to perform exceptionally in a narrower domain. Fine-tuning can yield large accuracy gains with relatively low compute, especially with modern parameter-efficient methods (Finetune LLMs on your own consumer hardware using tools from PyTorch and Hugging Face ecosystem | PyTorch). It’s often the quickest way to inject new capabilities (e.g. formatting answers, following company-specific instructions) into an existing model. The downsides are that a fine-tuned model may overfit to its domain if not careful, and it won’t generalize to new knowledge beyond its training data (unlike RAG which can fetch fresh info). Also, maintaining multiple fine-tuned versions (for different domains or clients) can be a management overhead – though adapter-based approaches mitigate this by modularizing the differences . Many industry players leverage fine-tuning on top of open-source LLMs to get custom models without training from scratch. For example, developers fine-tune LLaMA 2 or Falcon models on proprietary data to reach performance comparable to closed models, at a fraction of the cost and with data control.

Ultimately, these strategies are complementary. A real-world system might use a moderately large base model, fine-tuned to follow instructions (and perhaps some domain tuning), and then apply retrieval augmentation for any queries requiring up-to-date knowledge. The performance vs. cost trade-offs must be evaluated case by case. Scaling up a model might yield the best single-model performance, but adding retrieval could achieve similar results more efficiently for certain tasks . Fine-tuning can hone a model’s ability on target tasks, but cannot replace a broad base model for open-ended capabilities. The state of the art in 2024-2025 shows that with clever combinations of these approaches, it’s possible to get world-class LLM performance without solely relying on massive parameter counts. As hardware and algorithms improve, the sweet spot is moving toward smarter use of data and parameters – empowering even smaller models to perform like giants, and making giant models more accessible through efficiency gains. The ongoing research and industry innovation in scaling, RAG, and fine-tuning will continue to define this balance, driving down costs and enabling wider adoption of powerful AI systems (Welcome to LLMflation - LLM inference cost is going down fast ⬇️ | Andreessen Horowitz) .