When constructing a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system for documents containing mixed content like text, tables, and charts, the effectiveness of multimodal embeddings was compared to text embeddings. Tests were conducted using 150 queries on datasets such as DocVQA, ChartQA, and AI2D. Results showed that multimodal embeddings significantly outperformed text embeddings for tables (88% vs. 76%) and had a slight advantage with charts (92% vs. 90%), while text embeddings excelled in pure text scenarios (96% vs. 92%). These findings suggest that multimodal embeddings are preferable for visual documents, whereas text embeddings suffice for pure text content. This matters because choosing the right embedding approach can significantly enhance the performance of systems dealing with diverse document types.
Understanding how to effectively process documents with mixed content is crucial in today’s data-driven world. When dealing with documents that contain a blend of text, tables, and visual elements like charts and diagrams, the choice between using text embeddings and multimodal embeddings can significantly impact the performance of a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system. The core of the discussion revolves around whether it’s more beneficial to convert all content to text and use text embeddings or to maintain the visual elements and apply multimodal embeddings.
Recent experiments conducted on datasets such as DocVQA, ChartQA, and AI2D reveal that multimodal embeddings tend to outperform text embeddings in scenarios involving visual documents. For instance, when handling tables, multimodal embeddings achieved a Recall@1 score of 88%, compared to 76% for text embeddings. This 12-point gap highlights the advantage of preserving the visual context of tables. Similarly, for charts, multimodal embeddings slightly edged out text embeddings with a score of 92% versus 90%. These findings suggest that when visual elements are present, maintaining their integrity through multimodal embeddings can enhance retrieval performance.
However, the scenario changes when dealing with pure text documents. In such cases, text embeddings actually outperform multimodal embeddings, achieving a Recall@1 score of 96% compared to 92% for multimodal embeddings. This indicates that for documents devoid of visual elements, text embeddings are not only sufficient but also more effective. This distinction is important for developers and data scientists who need to choose the right approach based on the content type of the documents they are working with.
The implications of these findings are significant for the design of document processing systems. As organizations increasingly rely on automated systems to handle diverse document types, understanding the strengths of multimodal versus text embeddings can lead to more efficient and accurate information retrieval. By leveraging the appropriate embedding technique, businesses can ensure that their systems are optimized for the specific content they are dealing with, ultimately leading to better decision-making and improved outcomes. This knowledge is particularly valuable in fields such as finance, healthcare, and education, where documents often contain a mix of text and visual data.
Read the original article here
Comments
2 responses to “Multimodal vs Text Embeddings in Visual Docs”
While the findings indicate a clear advantage of multimodal embeddings in handling complex visual documents, it would be valuable to consider the computational cost associated with implementing multimodal systems compared to text-only models. Exploring this aspect could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the cost-benefit ratio when choosing between these approaches. Have you analyzed the performance differences in terms of processing time and resource usage for each embedding type?
The post primarily focuses on the effectiveness of embeddings in terms of accuracy and does not delve deeply into computational costs. Analyzing processing time and resource usage for multimodal versus text-only models could indeed provide valuable insights. For a detailed exploration of those aspects, it might be best to refer to the original article linked in the post.