# Analyzing Quality-Latency-Resource Trade-offs in a Technical Documentation RAG Assistant Using LoRA Adaptation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28222 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.28222/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in RAG pipeline design and evaluation, one of 15 directions in Retrieval-augmented generation.
- Builds on 0 of its 34 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 May 2026.

## Placed in

- Retrieval-augmented generation / [RAG pipeline design and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/rag/rag-pipeline-design-and-evaluation/)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We study quality-latency-resource trade-offs in a documentation-grounded retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system that uses Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) of the generator. We build a manually verified benchmark of 5,144 question-answer pairs over the official Kubernetes documentation and combine it with a fixed hybrid-retrieval pipeline (BGE-M3 dense, BGE-M3 native sparse, Reciprocal Rank Fusion, cross-encoder reranking). Over this benchmark we ablate 20 LoRA configurations on Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct and Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct across rank and target-module choices, and evaluate each on token-level F1, LLM-judged groundedness and correctness (pass@4), inference latency, inference memory, and training cost, all reported with bootstrap 95% confidence intervals. Pareto analysis shows that LoRA adapters acting only on the q and v attention projections consistently dominate the front, while the 3B/8B choice mainly defines operating regime. A param-matched control comparison further indicates that the q/v advantage is structural rather than purely parametric. The benchmark, selected adapters, and code are available at https://github.com/EugPal/rag-lora-tradeoffs.