Information Architecture Basics

"Why cognitive load (not clean code) is what really matters in coding" What truly matters in software development isn't following trendy practices - it's minimizing mental effort for other developers. I've witnessed numerous projects where brilliant developers created sophisticated architectures using cutting-edge patterns and microservices. Yet when new team members attempted modifications, they struggled for weeks just to grasp how components interconnected. This cognitive burden drastically reduced productivity and increased defects. Ironically, many of these complexity-inducing patterns were implemented pursuing "clean code." The essential goal should be reducing unnecessary mental strain. This might mean: - Fewer, deeper modules instead of many shallow ones - Keeping related logic together rather than fragmenting it - Choosing straightforward solutions over clever ones The best code isn't the most elegant - it's what future developers (including yourself) can quickly comprehend. When making architectural decisions or reviewing code, ask: "How much mental effort will others need to understand this?" Focus on minimizing cognitive load to create truly maintainable systems, not just theoretically clean ones. Remember, code is read far more often than written. #programming #softwareengineering #tech

The Brain Isn’t Actually Multitasking What we perceive as multitasking is, in neurological terms, rapid task-switching — a process that incurs significant cognitive costs. The brain doesn’t truly do two things at once; it simply toggles between tasks quickly, and that toggling has a price. It Costs You Time and Accuracy Research by Rubinstein, Meyer, and Evans found that task-switching can cost up to 40% of a person’s productive time due to the cognitive load of moving between tasks. Studies using brain-imaging technology confirm that performance scores are lower and error rates increase in multitask conditions compared to single-task conditions. It Impairs Memory and Attention Chronic multitaskers show inferior working memory performance and greater difficulty filtering out irrelevant information, leading to increased mental fatigue and stress. Frequent media multitasking is also associated with more self-reported attention lapses, mind-wandering, higher impulsiveness, and more problems with executive functions. It Hurts Academic and Professional Performance Research indicates that media multitasking interferes with attention and working memory, negatively affecting GPA, test performance, recall, reading comprehension, note-taking, self-regulation, and efficiency. Students also tend to underestimate how much it’s hurting them in the moment. The Brain Can “Disengage” Under Overload According to research, brain may “downshift” or limit additional resource allocation when cognitive load becomes excessive, rather than rising to the challenge. The Bottom Line For complex, goal-oriented work, monotasking — focused engagement with a single task — remains the superior strategy for sustainable productivity and cognitive fidelity. The research is fairly consistent: the feeling of being productive while multitasking is largely an illusion.

𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐖𝐡𝐨 𝐓𝐫𝐲 𝐉𝐮𝐠𝐠𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐓𝐨𝐨 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐁𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐌𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲. You’re juggling three balls, it feels you’ve got this. Now you’re juggling four, it’s tough but you manage. Now you’re juggling five, chaos builds. Now you’re juggling six, you drop all of them! That’s exactly how cognitive load feels. When your brain is juggling too much information and too many decisions at the same time. As a psychologist, I see this all the time. People think they’re indecisive or unproductive, but the truth is, their mental bandwidth is maxed out. 𝐂𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐚𝐝 - 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨𝐨 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫, 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧-𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠. When your brain is overwhelmed, even small decisions feel monumental. That’s why you might spend ages picking a restaurant after a day of big meetings. Your brain isn’t lazy—it’s overworked. But it’s not just about feeling tired. Cognitive load impacts the quality of your decisions. The more overwhelmed you are, the more likely you are to choose what’s easy, familiar, or convenient, not necessarily what’s best. Sounds scary. Right? I’ve worked with clients who felt stuck, unable to decide between career moves, new opportunities, or even personal goals. Most of the time, the problem wasn’t indecision. It was the sheer amount of information and options clouding their minds. 𝐒𝐨, 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐨𝐚𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬? → 𝐋𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐈𝐧𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐬: Be selective about what you consume. Your brain wasn’t designed to process infinite notifications or social feeds. Filter and focus. → 𝐁𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬: Make decisions in clusters. Planning your week’s meals in one go is far less taxing than deciding every day. → 𝐒𝐞𝐭 𝐁𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬: Not every choice deserves endless time. Give yourself limits. Trust your instincts and move forward. One client came to me overwhelmed by decisions, from strategic career moves to daily operations. We simplified her processes, grouped her tasks, and gave her decision-making space. Within weeks, she felt clearer, more confident, and far more in control. Cognitive load isn’t something you can escape entirely, but you can manage it. By reducing the mental clutter, you create space for clarity, confidence, and focus. If this clicks with you, I’d be delighted to share more insights into the psychology of decision-making with your team! Let’s get talking! #decisionmaking #team #mentalhealth #career #psychology #personaldevelopment

✂️ How To Map Unintended Consequences of UX Decisions (https://lnkd.in/dprq_aGc), with practical techniques to visualize, map and start planning for unintended consequences of design decisions — with systems thinking, impact ripples, iceberg visuals and feedback loops. By Martin Tomitsch and Justin Farrugia. 🤔 Not every design outcome is predictable and linear. ✅ Small changes can set large ripple effects in motion. ✅ Users don’t act in isolation; they react to feedback loops. ✅ Immediate metrics (e.g. clicks) often mask long-term impact. 🚫 We often focus on UX flows → but overlook causality, ripples. ✅ Systems Maps visualize relationships and consequences. ✅ We study direct and indirect effects of a suggested change. ✅ Quadrant Matrix → We map changes on Impact vs. Repetition. ✅ Impact Ripple → Direct impact, Indirect Impact, Big Picture. ✅ Iceberg Model → Events, Patterns, Structures, Mental Model. No design decision exists in isolation. Often we try to use linear user journey maps to understand how people use our product or go through specific flows. We measure the impact of A/B tests to see if we achieve a desired outcome and move the needle. We track conversion, clicks, engagement. In other words, we track metrics that often hide the complexities of user interactions and relationships between features and flows in our products. Complex systems often have conflicting loops — a feature that drives short-term retention might drive long-term churn or abandonment. Often these effects are delayed, invisible and appear to be highly unlikely at first. So before focusing on fine details of a feature, it's always a good idea to sit down and explore direct and indirect impact of the changes — for different user profiles, and the different workflows that users apply daily. A great reminder that as designers we are often so focused on fine little details too early — mostly to outperform the competition in some way. But we often forget that our product must excel in user's workflows with a few critical systems, dozens of other apps and hundreds of other tabs. --- ✤ Useful Toolkits and Books: Designing Tomorrow, by Martin Tomitsch, Steve Baty https://lnkd.in/dmXEZREr Thinking in Systems: A Primer, by Donella Meadows https://lnkd.in/dXbm5EEA Good Services: How to Design Services that Work, by Louise Downe https://lnkd.in/d5SigzvX The Great Mental Models, by Rhiannon Beaubien https://lnkd.in/dnT_GtDT Useful Books on Systems Thinking, by James Pomeroy https://lnkd.in/dH7d9exZ #ux #design

Over the past year, Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has rapidly evolved—from simple pipelines to intelligent, agent-driven systems. This visual compares the four most important RAG architectures shaping modern AI design: 1. 𝗡𝗮𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗥𝗔𝗚 • This is the baseline architecture. • The system embeds a user query, retrieves semantically similar chunks from a vector store, and feeds them to the LLM. • It's fast and easy to implement, but lacks refinement for ambiguous or complex queries. 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲: Quick prototypes and static FAQ bots. 2. 𝗔𝗱𝘃𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗥𝗔𝗚 • A more precise and thoughtful version of Naive RAG. • It adds two key steps: query rewriting to clarify user intent, and re-ranking to improve document relevance using scoring mechanisms like cross-encoders. • This results in more accurate and context-aware responses. 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲: Legal, healthcare, enterprise chatbots where accuracy is critical. 3. 𝗠𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶-𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹 𝗥𝗔𝗚 • Designed for multimodal knowledge bases that include both text and images. • Separate embedding models handle image and text data. The query is embedded and matched against both stores. • The retrieved context (text + image) is passed to a multimodal LLM, enabling reasoning across formats. 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲: Medical imaging, product manuals, e-commerce platforms, engineering diagrams. 4. 𝗔𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗥𝗔𝗚 • The most sophisticated approach. • It introduces reasoning through LLM-based agents that can rewrite queries, determine if additional context is needed, and choose the right retrieval strategy—whether from vector databases, APIs, or external tools. • The agent evaluates the relevance of each response and loops until a confident, complete answer is generated. 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲: Autonomous assistants, research copilots, multi-hop reasoning tasks, real-time decision systems. As AI systems grow more complex, the method of retrieving and reasoning over knowledge defines their real-world utility. ➤ Naive RAG is foundational. ➤ Advanced RAG improves response precision. ➤ Multi-Model RAG enables cross-modal reasoning. ➤ Agentic RAG introduces autonomy, planning, and validation. Each step forward represents a leap in capability—from simple lookup systems to intelligent, self-correcting agents. What’s your perspective on this evolution? Do you see organizations moving toward agentic systems, or is advanced RAG sufficient for most enterprise use cases today? Your insights help guide the next wave of content I create.

When someone lands on your site, every extra word, button, or menu is a cognitive tax. Take this landing page comparison: Attio - keeps the load light • One navigation bar • 12 words in total for the header + sub-header • 9 clickable exits above the fold • Lots of whitespace • Sneak peak at product imagery The result = focus 🧘♀️ HubSpot - seems to have many cooks in the kitchen • Two navigation bars at the top • 50% more words (24 words in the header + subheader) • 13 clickable exits above the fold • Bigger chat widgets • Lifestyle imagery instead of whitespace The result = distraction 🐿️ With busier pages comes higher cognitive load, the paradox of choice, and decision paralysis 🧠 In real terms: if someone pauses even a split second more and doesn’t act, they’re more likely to bounce. And this isn’t just true for landing pages - it applies to pricing pages, homepages, dashboards… anywhere with competing priorities 👩🍳 👩🍳 👩🍳 It’s easy to add, hard to cut. ✂️ Good design isn’t what you add, it’s what you remove (or don't add in the first place). So ask yourself: What's the 30% you can remove from your page? 🗑️

If you are an AI Engineer building production-grade GenAI systems, RAG should be in your toolkit. LLMs are powerful for information generation, but: → They hallucinate → They don’t know anything post-training → They struggle with out-of-distribution queries RAG solves this by injecting external knowledge at inference time. But basic RAG (retrieval + generation) isn’t enough for complex use cases. You need advanced techniques to make it reliable in production. Let’s break it down 👇 🧠 Basic RAG = Retrieval → Generation You ask a question. → The retriever fetches top-k documents (via vector search, BM25, etc.) → The LLM answers based on the query + retrieved context But, this naive setup fails quickly in the wild. You need to address two hard problems: 1. Are we retrieving the right documents? 2. Is the generator actually using them faithfully? ⚙️ Advanced RAG = Engineering Both Ends To improve retrieval, we have techniques like: → Chunk size tuning (fixed vs. recursive splitting) → Sliding window chunking (for dense docs) → Structured data retrieval (tables, graphs, SQL) → Metadata-aware search (filtering by author/date/type) → Mixed retrieval (hybrid keyword + dense) → Embedding fine-tuning (aligning to domain-specific semantics) → Question rewriting (to improve recall) To improve generation, options include: → Compressing retrieved docs (summarization, reranking) → Generator fine-tuning (rewarding citation usage and reasoning) → Re-ranking outputs (scoring factuality or domain accuracy) → Plug-and-play adapters (LoRA, QLoRA, etc.) 🧪 Beyond Modular: Joint Optimization Some of the most promising work goes further: → Fine-tuning retriever + generator end-to-end → Retrieval training via generation loss (REACT, RETRO-style) → Generator-enhanced search (LLM reformulates the query for better retrieval) This is where RAG starts to feel less like a bolt-on patch and more like a full-stack system. 📏 How Do You Know It's Working? Key metrics to track: → Context Relevance (Are the right docs retrieved?) → Answer Faithfulness (Did the LLM stay grounded?) → Negative Rejection (Does it avoid answering when nothing relevant is retrieved?) → Tools: RAGAS, FaithfulQA, nDCG, Recall@k 🛠️ Arvind and I are kicking off a hands-on workshop on RAG This first session is designed for beginner to intermediate practitioners who want to move beyond theory and actually build. Here’s what you’ll learn: → How RAG enhances LLMs with real-time, contextual data → Core concepts: vector DBs, indexing, reranking, fusion → Build a working RAG pipeline using LangChain + Pinecone → Explore no-code/low-code setups and real-world use cases If you're serious about building with LLMs, this is where you start. 📅 Save your seat and join us live: https://lnkd.in/gS_B7_7d Image source: LlamaIndex

RAG just got smarter. If you’ve been working with Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), you probably know the basic setup: An LLM retrieves documents based on a query and uses them to generate better, grounded responses. But as use cases get more complex, we need more advanced retrieval strategies—and that’s where these four techniques come in: Self-Query Retriever Instead of relying on static prompts, the model creates its own structured query based on metadata. Let’s say a user asks: “What are the reviews with a score greater than 7 that say bad things about the movie?” This technique breaks that down into query + filter logic, letting the model interact directly with structured data (like Chroma DB) using the right filters. Parent Document Retriever Here, retrieval happens in two stages: 1. Identify the most relevant chunks 2. Pull in their parent documents for full context This ensures you don’t lose meaning just because information was split across small segments. Contextual Compression Retriever (Reranker) Sometimes the top retrieved documents are… close, but not quite right. This reranker pulls the top K (say 4) documents, then uses a transformer + reranker (like Cohere) to compress and re-rank the results based on both query and context—keeping only the most relevant bits. Multi-Vector Retrieval Architecture Instead of matching a single vector per document, this method breaks both queries and documents into multiple token-level vectors using models like ColBERT. The retrieval happens across all vectors—giving you higher recall and more precise results for dense, knowledge-rich tasks. These aren’t just fancy tricks. They solve real-world problems like: • “My agent’s answer missed part of the doc.” • “Why is the model returning irrelevant data?” • “How can I ground this LLM more effectively in enterprise knowledge?” As RAG continues to scale, these kinds of techniques are becoming foundational. So if you’re building search-heavy or knowledge-aware AI systems, it’s time to level up beyond basic retrieval. Which of these approaches are you most excited to experiment with? #ai #agents #rag #theravitshow

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗼𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁? Cognitive overload happens when the mental effort required to use a system or process exceeds the user’s capacity. In Procurement, this happens when tools are overly complex or poorly designed. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗼𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝘁 and range from a persistent operational inefficiency, more errors, low adoption of complex solutions and ultimately a risk for employee burnout. While some level of complexity is inevitable to support advanced functionality, the way tools and workflows are designed plays a crucial role for their usability, how effectively users can engage with them and the level of mental load they create. The Cognitive Load Theory (CLT), introduced by John Sweller in the 1980s, provides a framework for reducing mental strain by focusing on how users learn, process and retain information. The CLT identifies three types of cognitive load and offers insights into how Procurement Systems can be optimised for usability: 1️⃣ 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗰 𝗟𝗼𝗮𝗱 which arises from the inherent complexity of the task or information. In Procurement, examples include multi-dimensional RFP scoring or the authoring of complex contracts and their SLAs. 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀? Break down and simplify complex tasks into manageable steps using modular workflows, and provide pre-configured templates for common scenarios. 2️⃣ 𝗘𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗲𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗟𝗼𝗮𝗱 stemming from poor system design, irrelevant information or inefficient processes. For example, clunky interfaces, unnecessary workflow steps or dashboards that hide insights under excessive detail. 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀? Minimise Extraneous Load with a functional user interface design, using smart visualisations and streamlining workflows. 3️⃣ 𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗲 𝗟𝗼𝗮𝗱 resulting from the cognitive effort that directly supports learning and mastery. Examples include tooltips, clear guidance, and onboarding processes that make systems easier to navigate. 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀? Enhance Germane Load with role-specific training, embedded tool tips & intuitive help features accelerating user learning. All three types can lead to a reduced capacity of employees to be able to operate effectively and potential negative consequences and mental stress. 𝗖𝗼𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝗮 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗲. 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗮 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻-𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 and optimise their cognitive load levels by unveiling tasks step by-step, simplifying design and providing helpful learning features, 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗯𝗼𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿. ❓How do you think can solutions be humanised to reduce cognitive load. ❓What else helps to generate a good usability and user experience.

🚀 𝐄𝐧𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐑𝐀𝐆 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐬. . . Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems depend on retrieval and generation to produce high-quality responses. However, if the retrieval process isn’t effective, even the best LLMs will struggle to generate useful outputs. The Solution? 𝐄𝐧𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐥 𝐓𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬 Instead of relying on a basic retrieval system, we can refine queries and retrieval strategies to improve accuracy and relevance. Here are four techniques that could enhance retrieval performance: 📌 𝐄𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐲-𝐀𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐥 Use named entities (e.g., people, locations, organizations) to refine search queries. ✅ Benefits: Improves precision by focusing on domain-specific terminology and reducing ambiguity. 📌 𝐇𝐲𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐝 𝐒𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐬𝐞-𝐃𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐥 For better relevance, combine sparse retrieval (e.g., BM25) with dense vector search (embeddings). ✅ Benefits: Balances precision and recall, covering keyword-based and semantic search techniques. 📌 𝐌𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐢-𝐒𝐭𝐞𝐩 𝐃𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐑𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐥 Retrieves documents iteratively, refining queries and filtering results in multiple stages. ✅ Benefits: Increases relevance for complex queries and eliminates noisy or duplicate results. 📌 𝐇𝐲𝐩𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐃𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐄𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐝𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 (𝐇𝐲𝐃𝐄) Generates a pseudo-document from the query before retrieval, improving search results. ✅ Benefits: Helps when queries are short, vague, or lack sufficient context. 🛠 How These Techniques Improve RAG 1️⃣ They increase recall, ensuring important documents aren’t missed. 2️⃣ They reduce noise, preventing irrelevant or duplicate context from misleading the generation step. 3️⃣ They handle complex queries better, allowing for better reasoning and improved search expansion. 💡 Key Takeaways 🔑 Better retrieval leads to better generation—fix retrieval first! 🔑 Simple techniques like entity-aware retrieval can drastically improve RAG results. ✍️ Want to dive deeper? Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gYv9UWuy 🔗RAG-To-Know Repository: https://lnkd.in/gQqqQd2a What are your thoughts? Have you used any of these techniques before? Let’s discuss this in the comments!👇👇👇