Authority in RAG Systems: The Missing Piece in Your Retrieval Strategy¶

Here's the thing about RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation): everyone's obsessed with fancy embeddings and vector search, but they're missing something crucial – authority matters just as much as relevance.

My students constantly ask about a classic problem: "What happens when new documents supersede old ones?" A technical guide from 2023 might be completely outdated by a 2025 update, but pure semantic search doesn't know that. It might retrieve the old version simply because the embedding is marginally closer to the query.

This highlights a bigger truth: relevancy, freshness, and authority are all critical signals that traditional information retrieval systems juggled effectively. Somehow we've forgotten these lessons in our rush to build RAG systems. The newest and shiniest AI technique isn't always the complete solution.

I've spent years working with ML systems, and I've seen this pattern repeatedly. We get excited about semantic search, but forget the hard-won lessons from decades of information retrieval: not all sources deserve equal trust.

What Even Is "Authority" in Retrieval?¶

Authority in information retrieval is essentially about how much we should trust a document. It's not just what the document says, but who said it and how credible they are.

Think about Google's original PageRank algorithm. It wasn't just checking if your search terms appeared on a page. It was asking: "Do other important pages link to this one?" The assumption was simple but powerful – important pages attract more backlinks, especially from other important pages.

This isn't just academic theory. It's the difference between your RAG system pulling information from a random blog versus the official documentation. It's the difference between hallucination and accuracy.

The stakes are higher with RAG than with regular search. In search, users see the source and can judge it. In RAG, users often just see the final answer. If that answer is built on shaky foundations, they might never know.

Traditional Search vs. Semantic Search on Authority¶

There's a fundamental tension here that's worth unpacking:

Traditional search engines like Google and Bing have spent decades incorporating authority. They combine: - Does the query appear in the document? (lexical relevance) - Is this document trustworthy? (authority signals) - How do users engage with this result? (click-through, dwell time)

Semantic search (embedding-based retrieval) primarily focuses on meaning similarity. This is great for finding relevant content regardless of exact wording, but it completely ignores traditional authority signals.

A personal blog and a peer-reviewed paper look identical to a vector database if their content seems semantically similar to your query.

This isn't theoretical – I've seen it myself. While building RAG systems for clients, I've watched embedding search return Reddit comments over official documentation, just because the comment happened to use similar language to the query.

Moving Beyond Basic RAG: Segmentation and Classification¶

As we explored in our work on segmentation and classification (Week 2 of our development process), not all queries deserve the same treatment. What's authoritative depends entirely on the query type:

• Medical questions might require peer-reviewed sources
• Coding questions might be best answered by community sites like Stack Overflow
• Internal company policies need official documentation

This is why simply using a monolithic embedding index often falls short. When I work with teams to analyze their data, we often find that poor performance clusters around specific query types that need specialized handling.

Learning to Rank: The Path Forward¶

Here's where old-school information retrieval wisdom meets modern ML. Learning to rank models offer us the best of both worlds: they can integrate semantic relevance, authority signals, and any other features we care about into a unified ranking function.

What is Learning to Rank?¶

Learning to rank (LTR) is a supervised machine learning approach where we train a model to rank documents based on their relevance to a query. But "relevance" here is multi-dimensional – not just semantic similarity.

For each query-document pair, we extract features like: - BM25 score (keyword matching) - Vector similarity score - PageRank or domain authority - Citation count - Freshness (recency) - User engagement signals - Source reputation

We then train a model (often XGBoost, LambdaMART, or similar) to predict the optimal ranking based on these features.

XGBoost for RAG Ranking¶

XGBoost is particularly well-suited for learning to rank in RAG systems. It's: - Fast at inference time (critical for production) - Handles diverse feature types well - Naturally models complex interactions between features - Provides feature importance metrics to help understand what's driving rankings

The training process looks like this: 1. Collect query-document pairs with relevance labels (ideally from real user interactions) 2. Extract features for each pair 3. Train the model to optimize a ranking metric (like NDCG or MAP) 4. Deploy the model to re-rank your retrieval results

The beauty of this approach is its flexibility. If you discover a new authority signal, you can simply add it as a feature and retrain.

Incorporating Neural Re-rankers as Features¶

Modern neural re-rankers like Cohere's rerank model are incredibly powerful at assessing semantic relevance between a query and document. But rather than using them in isolation, we can incorporate them as features in our learning-to-rank model.

Imagine a system where: 1. Your first-stage retriever gets 100 candidate documents 2. Cohere's rerank model scores each document's semantic relevance 3. You extract other features (authority, freshness, etc.) 4. Your XGBoost ranker combines all these signals to produce the final ranking

This approach lets neural relevance and traditional authority signals work together, not in competition. The learning-to-rank model can learn when to prioritize one over the other based on query type, document source, or other contextual factors.

Specialized Indices and Query Routing¶

One of the most effective approaches I've seen (and that we cover extensively in Weeks 3-4 of our development process) is combining specialized indices with intelligent query routing.

Instead of having a single massive vector database, consider: - A primary text search index using hybrid (BM25 + vector) search - A specialized "high authority" index containing only vetted sources - A "recency" index optimized for timeline queries and recent events

Then, use query understanding to route each question to the appropriate index. This allows you to match each query type with the retrieval method that prioritizes the right signals.

For instance, when a user asks "What's the official policy on X?", your router can specifically target the high-authority index, ensuring trustworthy results.

Tools and Implementation¶

Implementing learning to rank doesn't require complex frameworks. Here are some practical approaches:

Elasticsearch's Learning to Rank Plugin: This integrates with your existing Elasticsearch setup, allowing you to apply ML ranking models on top of ES queries. You can train models externally (using tools like RankLib or XGBoost) and deploy them to Elasticsearch for scoring.

DIY Python Pipeline: For smaller-scale systems, a simple Python pipeline can work well: 1. Use any retrieval method to get candidate documents 2. Extract features (using whatever sources you have) 3. Apply your trained XGBoost model to score and rank results 4. Send the top-N to your LLM

This approach gives you maximum flexibility but requires more engineering.

Real-World Examples¶

Let's look at how companies are applying these principles:

Bing Chat & Google's SGE: These are essentially RAG systems at massive scale. They rely on their existing search ranking (which heavily weights authority) to select web pages to feed into their LLMs. Behind the scenes, they're using sophisticated learning-to-rank models trained on billions of user interactions.

Perplexity.ai: This AI search engine is fascinating. Their CEO Aravind Srinivas has explicitly talked about "the enduring value" of methods like BM25 and domain authority signals like PageRank. While they haven't disclosed their exact ranking approach, it's almost certainly using learning-to-rank techniques to balance semantic, lexical, and authority signals.

Building the Data Flywheel¶

The most successful RAG systems I've worked with (as we emphasize in Week 1 of our process) build a continuous improvement flywheel. They:

1. Start with synthetic data and basic evaluation metrics
2. Collect real user feedback on retrieval quality
3. Use that feedback to train better ranking models
4. Deploy improvements and collect more feedback

This flywheel approach means your system gets better and better at understanding which sources deserve authority for which query types.

But it all starts with proper instrumentation – you need to track not just what users ask, but which sources they find helpful, which they ignore, and which lead to followup questions.

Challenges You'll Face¶

Building effective learning-to-rank systems comes with challenges:

Training Data: The hardest part is often getting labeled data. Ideally, you need real user interactions showing which documents were helpful for which queries. Without this, you might need to create synthetic data or use expert labelers.

Feature Engineering: Identifying and extracting the right authority signals can be tricky. Sometimes simple heuristics work well (e.g., "official docs get a +0.5 boost"), but ideally, you want to learn these weights from data.

Query-Dependent Authority: What's authoritative depends on the query type. Medical questions might require official sources, while coding questions might be best answered by community sites like Stack Overflow. Your model needs to learn these distinctions.

Cold Start Problems: New documents lack user engagement signals and often authority signals too. You'll need strategies to handle these cases, perhaps with exploration policies that occasionally surface newer content to gather data.

Fine-tuning Your Models¶

As we explore in Week 5 of our development process, fine-tuning can dramatically improve retrieval quality. While most teams focus on fine-tuning embedding models, don't overlook the power of fine-tuning re-rankers specifically for authority-aware ranking.

With just a few thousand examples of preferred rankings (showing which documents should be trusted for which query types), you can turn a general-purpose re-ranker into one that understands your specific domain's authority structures.

Where This Is All Heading¶

I see several exciting directions for authority in learning-to-rank RAG systems:

1. Self-Supervised Feedback Loops: Systems that learn from their own successes and failures. If a particular source consistently leads to positive user interactions, it gets an authority boost.

2. Multi-Stage Ranking: Using cheaper models for initial retrieval and progressively more sophisticated models for re-ranking smaller candidate sets. This balances computational efficiency with ranking quality.

3. Context-Aware Ranking: Models that dynamically adjust the importance of different signals based on user context, query intent, and task type.

4. Counterfactual Learning: Training ranking models not just on what users clicked, but what they would have clicked if shown different results. This helps overcome position bias and other sampling issues.

5. UX Integration: As we cover in Week 6, the presentation layer matters enormously. By showing citations and confidence levels, you can help users understand which parts of an answer come from high-authority sources.

The Bottom Line¶

If you're building RAG systems, don't get caught in the trap of thinking embedding search solves everything. Learning-to-rank approaches give you the framework to combine the semantic understanding of modern embeddings with the hard-won wisdom of traditional information retrieval.

The magic happens when you blend signals – when your model learns that for this specific query type, from this specific user, a document needs both high semantic relevance AND strong authority signals to be truly useful.

Remember: your RAG system is only as good as the information it retrieves. Authority isn't just nice to have – it's essential for building AI systems users can actually trust.

If you found this useful, follow me on Twitter @jxnlco for more content like this.

P.S. If you're building a RAG system right now, try this simple experiment: Take 10 recent queries from your users and manually analyze the top 3 results for each. Are they coming from sources you'd consider authoritative? Or are they just semantically similar? This quick audit might reveal more about your system's weaknesses than weeks of engineering work.

Comments