6 min readJust now

–

Introduction: Why RAG Still Isn’t “Solved”

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become one of the most important techniques in modern AI. By combining large language models (LLMs) with external documents, RAG reduces hallucinations, improves factual accuracy, and keeps models relevant even when their training data is outdated .

But here’s the catch — despite all its success, most RAG systems are fundamentally broken by design.

1. Retrieval and generation are trained separately.
2. Retrievers rank documents based on embedding similarity, while generators produce answers without ever telling the retriever what was actually useful.
3. On top of that, retrievers operate in embedding space, generators consume raw text, and the system ends up bloated with long contexts, duplicated computation, and no real end-to-end learning.

Apple’s CLaRa (Continuous Latent Reasoning) tackles this problem head-on by asking a bold question:

What if retrieval and generation were trained together, using the same continuous representations?

I publish a new GenAI research breakdown every two weeks. A quick comment, clap or share really helps me keep the momentum going.

***To read the Original paper published by Apple Researchers: ***Click here

The Core Problem with Traditional RAG Pipelines

To understand why CLaRa matters, let’s briefly look at how standard RAG works.

How Classic RAG Works

1. A query is encoded into an embedding.
2. Documents are retrieved using similarity search.
3. Retrieved documents are passed as raw text to an LLM.
4. The LLM generates an answer.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

Classic RAG architecture : Source

This pipeline sounds reasonable — but it hides two major flaws.

1. Disjoint Optimization

Retrieval decisions are discrete. Once documents are selected, gradients from the generator cannot flow back to improve retrieval. This means:

• The retriever never learns what actually helps answer questions.
• Relevance is defined by surface similarity, not reasoning utility.

2. Severe Inefficiency

According to the CLaRa paper:

• Documents are encoded multiple times.
• Context windows grow huge.
• Long, irrelevant text overwhelms the generator .

Even when retrieval is “correct,” the generator may still struggle because it’s forced to reason over noisy, oversized inputs.

CLaRa’s Big Idea: Shared Continuous Latent Space

CLaRa introduces a simple but powerful shift:

Replace raw text with compressed continuous representations that serve both retrieval and generation.

Instead of passing documents as text, CLaRa compresses them into memory-token embeddings — compact vectors that capture only the essential semantics.

These compressed representations:

• Live in a shared latent space
• Are used for both retrieval and generation
• Are differentiable, enabling end-to-end training

This design eliminates the architectural mismatch that has plagued RAG systems for years .

Press enter or click to view image in full size

CLaRa High level Architecure : Source

Stage One: Salient Compressor Pretraining (SCP)

Before retrieval and generation can be unified, documents must be compressed intelligently. CLaRa introduces Salient Compressor Pretraining (SCP) to make that happen.

Why Token Reconstruction Isn’t Enough

Previous compression methods focused on reconstructing original tokens. The problem?

• They waste capacity memorizing trivial details.
• They don’t “digest” the document’s meaning.

CLaRa instead trains the compressor to retain salient information.

How SCP Works

Using millions of Wikipedia documents, SCP creates synthetic supervision through:

• Simple QA pairs (single facts)
• Complex QA pairs (multi-fact reasoning)
• Paraphrased documents (same meaning, different wording)

This combination teaches the compressor what matters for reasoning, not just what appears frequently .

Press enter or click to view image in full size

Overview of the SCP (Salient Compressor Pretraining) framework. It includes (a) synthetic data construction for pretraining, (2) compressor training using the pretraining data Source

Stage Two: Joint Retrieval and Generation Training

Once documents are compressed, CLaRa moves into its most important phase: end-to-end training.

Key Components

• Frozen document compressor (offline encoding)
• Query reasoner that maps queries into the same latent space
• Generator that consumes only continuous tokens

The retriever ranks documents using cosine similarity between query and document embeddings, and the generator receives the top-k compressed vectors, not raw text.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

CLaRa end-to-end training: update query reasoner and generator via language modeling loss using candidate document–question–answer triples. Source

One Loss to Rule Them All

CLaRa uses a single next-token prediction loss to train both:

• The query reasoner (retrieval)
• The generator (answering)

This means retrieval is optimized directly for answer quality, without any relevance labels .

Differentiable Top-K: The Missing Link

Retrieval is usually non-differentiable because selecting top-k documents is discrete. CLaRa solves this using a Straight-Through (ST) estimator.

Get Harsh Chandekar’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.

Why This Is Important ?

• During inference, retrieval behaves normally.
• During training, gradients flow through a soft approximation.
• The retriever learns why certain documents help generation.

This avoids unstable reinforcement learning and keeps training efficient and stable .

Continuous Latent Reasoning in Action

One fascinating finding from the paper is that the query reasoner learns implicit reasoning signals.

When researchers decoded query embeddings using a logit lens:

• The embeddings contained tokens not present in the original question.
• These tokens often appeared in the gold evidence documents.

In other words, the query representation itself encodes latent reasoning clues, aligning retrieval with downstream reasoning needs . It can also be seen as the resemblance of the query refactoring technique in RAG.

Performance Results: Why CLaRa Stands Out

CLaRa was evaluated on major QA benchmarks including:

• Natural Questions (NQ), HotpotQA, MuSiQue, 2WikiMultihopQA

Key Highlights

• State-of-the-art compression performance
• Strong retrieval accuracy without labeled data
• End-to-end QA performance competitive with text-based systems
• Up to 16× context reduction with minimal performance loss

In several cases, compressed representations outperformed raw text, suggesting that removing noise actually improves reasoning.

How CLaRa Compares to Existing RAG Approaches

Architecture Comparison

CLaRa is the only approach that removes the representation mismatch between retrieval and generation by operating entirely in a shared continuous space .

Training Comparison

CLaRa avoids reinforcement learning entirely, using differentiable top-k selection so generator feedback directly improves retrieval .

Retrieval and Efficiency Comparison

CLaRa is the first framework to jointly optimize reranking and generation directly over compressed representations.

When to use what ?

Use Classic RAG when:

• You need a quick, simple implementation
• Contexts are short and well-curated
• Compute cost is not a major concern
• End-to-end optimization is unnecessary

Best for: prototypes, low-stakes applications, demos

Use CLaRa when:

• You care about efficiency at scale
• Context length is a bottleneck
• Retrieval quality must align with reasoning
• You want label-free retriever learning
• Stability matters more than experimental novelty

Best for: production RAG systems, enterprise QA, multi-hop reasoning, cost-sensitive deployments

Use RL-Based RAG only when:

• You have massive compute budgets
• You need custom reward shaping
• You can tolerate unstable training

Best for: research experimentation, not production

Press enter or click to view image in full size

Why This Matters for the Future of AI

CLaRa isn’t just a performance upgrade — it’s a paradigm shift.

Practical Implications

• Lower inference costs
• Smaller context windows
• Better reasoning alignment
• Scalable RAG for real-world systems

Research Implications

• Compression becomes a feature, not a compromise
• Retrieval evolves from similarity search to reasoning-aware selection
• Continuous representations unlock new end-to-end designs

Some FAQs

What does CLaRa stand for? Continuous Latent Reasoning.

Does CLaRa require labeled retrieval data? No. Retrieval is learned purely from generation loss.

Is raw text used at inference time? No. Generation operates entirely on continuous compressed representations.

Can CLaRa replace standard RAG pipelines? For many QA tasks, yes — especially where efficiency and reasoning matter.

Final Thoughts

CLaRa shows that the future of Retrieval-Augmented Generation isn’t about stuffing more text into bigger context windows. It’s about smarter representations, shared latent spaces, and true end-to-end learning.

By bridging retrieval and generation with continuous latent reasoning, Apple’s CLaRa framework offers a cleaner, faster, and more intelligent path forward for RAG systems — and sets the stage for what’s next in knowledge-grounded AI.