Multimodal RAG with Vision: Microsoft ISE experiments on image-enriched document retrieval for enterprise Q&A
Enterprise documents contain both textual and image content such as photographs, diagrams, and screenshots; standard text-only RAG pipelines cannot surface image information, limiting the relevance of LLM responses to image-related queries.
Multi-modal embeddings like CLIP were initially considered but rejected due to word-count limits and inability to capture detailed visual information; the inference model also did not reliably return parsable JSON output.
source quote
source quote
source quote
source quote
source quote
source quote
source quote
Including document metadata produced a statistically significant improvement in source recall; storing image annotations as separate chunks yielded notable statistical improvements in both source document and image retrieval metrics; and introducing an image classifier substantially reduced ingestion time while maintaining statistically similar recall.
Compare to your context
Tell us your scale, team, and constraints. We'll show what changes at your size, what fails at your scale, and whether this case is a fit, needs adaptation, or won't scale to you. Free demo, no signup.
Frequently asked questions
What did this team achieve with this AI workflow?
Including document metadata produced a statistically significant improvement in source recall; storing image annotations as separate chunks yielded notable statistical improvements in both source document and image re…
What tools did this team use?
GPT-4V, GPT-4o, Azure AI Search, Azure Computer Vision Image Analysis, Azure OpenAI Service, Azure AI Services.
What results were reported?
Source recall improvement from metadata: statistically significant improvement in source recall performance; Retrieval metrics improvement from separate image chunks: notable statistical improvements in both source document and image retrieval metrics; Ingestion time reduction from classifier: substantially reducing ingestion time; Search latency change from separate chunks: no change in terms of search latency (source-reported, not independently verified).
What failed first in this deployment?
Multi-modal embeddings like CLIP were initially considered but rejected due to word-count limits and inability to capture detailed visual information; the inference model also did not reliably return parsable JSON out…
How is this field service AI workflow structured?
Document ingestion via custom loader → Image classification for relevance → MLLM image description generation → Indexing enriched data in Azure AI Search → User query and chunk retrieval → Optional reranking for precision → LLM answer and citation generation.
Related field service cases
Now compare it to your context
This case is one data point. Whether its pattern fits you depends on your volumes, your stack, and your exception load — that comparison is the step no case study can do for you.