Cited by 21Topic ModelingInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorNatural Language Processing Techniques

Shall We Pretrain Autoregressive Language Models with Retrieval? A Comprehensive Study

Open access
Wang, Boxin, Ping, Wei, Xu, Peng, McAfee, Lawrence, Liu, Zihan, Shoeybi, Mohammad, Dong, Yi, Kuchaiev, Oleksii +4 more·2023·Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Abstract

Boxin Wang, Wei Ping, Peng Xu, Lawrence McAfee, Zihan Liu, Mohammad Shoeybi, Yi Dong, Oleksii Kuchaiev, Bo Li, Chaowei Xiao, Anima Anandkumar, Bryan Catanzaro. Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2023.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.482

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The fact-checking rail formulates the task as an entailment problem: given an evidence text and a generated bot response, the LLM predicts whether the response is grounded in and entailed by the evidence.

    “Operating under the assumption of retrieval augmented generation (Wang et al., 2023), we formulate the task as an entailment problem. Specifically, given an evidence text and a generated bot response , we ask the LLM to predict whether the response is grounded in and entailed by the evidence.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Matthew W Bilotti, Paul Ogilvie, Jamie Callan, and Eric Nyberg. 2007. Structured retrieval for question answering. In Proceedings of the 30th annual inter- national ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval.
  2. Yonatan Bisk, Rowan Zellers, Jianfeng Gao, Yejin Choi, et al. 2020. Piqa: Reasoning about physical common- sense in natural language. In AAAI.
  3. Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoff- mann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Milli- can, George Bm Van Den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Improving language models by retrieving from tril- lions of tokens. In ICML.
  4. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. NeurIPS.
  5. Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, Ming-Wei Chang, Tom Kwiatkowski, Michael Collins, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Boolq: Exploring the surprising difficulty of natural yes/no questions. In NAACL.
  6. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language under- standing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805. · arXiv
  7. Tiezheng Ge, Kaiming He, Qifa Ke, and Jian Sun. 2014. Optimized product quantization. IEEE Trans- actions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 36(4):744-755. · DOI
  8. Samuel Gehman, Suchin Gururangan, Maarten Sap, Yejin Choi, and Noah A Smith. 2020. RealToxic- ityPrompts: Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models. In Findings in EMNLP.
  9. R.M. Gray and D.L. Neuhoff. 1998. Quantiza- tion. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 44(6):2325-2383. · DOI
  10. Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasu- pat, and Mingwei Chang. 2020. REALM: Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In ICML.
  11. Or Honovich, Thomas Scialom, Omer Levy, and Timo Schick. 2022. Unnatural instructions: Tuning lan- guage models with (almost) no human labor. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
  12. Gautier Izacard and Édouard Grave. 2021. Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open do- main question answering. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 874-880.
  13. Gautier Izacard, Patrick Lewis, Maria Lomeli, Lu- cas Hosseini, Fabio Petroni, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Armand Joulin, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. 2022. Few-shot learning with re- trieval augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03299. · arXiv
  14. Mojtaba Komeili, Kurt Shuster, and Jason Weston. 2021. Internet-augmented dialogue generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07566. · arXiv
  15. Andreas Köpf, Yannic Kilcher, Dimitri von Rütte, Sotiris Anagnostidis, Zhi-Rui Tam, Keith Stevens, Abdullah Barhoum, Nguyen Minh Duc, Oliver Stanley, Richárd Nagyfi, Shahul ES, Sameer Suri, David Glushkov, Arnav Dantuluri, Andrew Maguire, Christoph Schuhmann, Huu Nguyen, and Alexander Mattick. 2023. Openassistant conversations -de- mocratizing large language model alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2304.07327. · arXiv
  16. Nayeon Lee, Wei Ping, Peng Xu, Mostofa Patwary, Pas- cale Fung, Mohammad Shoeybi, and Bryan Catan- zaro. 2022. Factuality enhanced language models for open-ended text generation. NeurIPS.
  17. Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Hein- rich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rock- täschel, et al. 2020b. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. In NeurIPS.
  18. Stephanie C. Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. 2021. TruthfulQA: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. ACL.
  19. S. Longpre, Le Hou, Tu Vu, Albert Webson, Hyung Won Chung, Yi Tay, Denny Zhou, Quoc V. Le, Barret Zoph, Jason Wei, and Adam Roberts. 2023. The flan collection: Designing data and methods for effec- tive instruction tuning. International Conference on Machine Learning. · DOI
  20. Yu A Malkov and Dmitry A Yashunin. 2018. Efficient and robust approximate nearest neighbor search us- ing hierarchical navigable small world graphs. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelli- gence, 42(4):824-836.
  21. Kevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, and Yonatan Belinkov. 2022. Locating and editing factual knowl- edge in GPT. In NeurIPS.
  22. Yixin Nie, Adina Williams, Emily Dinan, Mohit Bansal, Jason Weston, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Adversarial nli: A new benchmark for natural language under- standing. In ACL.
  23. OpenAI. 2022. ChatGPT. https://chat.openai.co m. OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 technical report. arXiv.
  24. Denis Paperno, Germán Kruszewski, Angeliki Lazari- dou, Ngoc-Quan Pham, Raffaella Bernardi, Sandro Pezzelle, Marco Baroni, Gemma Boleda, and Raquel Fernández. 2016. The lambada dataset: Word predic- tion requiring a broad discourse context. In NAACL.
  25. Fabio Petroni, Tim Rocktäschel, Patrick Lewis, An- ton Bakhtin, Yuxiang Wu, Alexander H Miller, and Sebastian Riedel. 2019. Language models as knowl- edge bases? In EMNLP.
  26. Steven T. Piantadosi. 2014. Zipf's word frequency law in natural language: A critical review and future di- rections. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21:1112- 1130. · DOI
  27. Mohammad Taher Pilehvar and Jose Camacho-Collados. 2019. Wic: the word-in-context dataset for evaluat- ing context-sensitive meaning representations. In NAACL.
  28. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9.
  29. Keisuke Sakaguchi, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavat- ula, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Winogrande: An adver- sarial winograd schema challenge at scale. In AAAI.
  30. Kurt Shuster, Spencer Poff, Moya Chen, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2021. Retrieval augmentation reduces hallucination in conversation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.07567. · arXiv
  31. Romal Thoppilan, Daniel De Freitas, Jamie Hall, Noam Shazeer, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Heng-Tze Cheng, Alicia Jin, Taylor Bos, Leslie Baker, Yu Du, et al. 2022. Lamda: Language models for dialog applica- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08239. · arXiv
  32. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In NIPS.
  33. Boxin Wang, Wei Ping, Lawrence McAfee, Peng Xu, Bo Li, Mohammad Shoeybi, and Bryan Catan- zaro. 2023. Instructretro: Instruction tuning post retrieval-augmented pretraining. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2310.07713. · arXiv
  34. Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, An- drew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2022a. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In ICLR.
  35. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022b. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits rea- soning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:24824-24837.
  36. Johannes Welbl, Amelia Glaese, Jonathan Uesato, Sumanth Dathathri, John Mellor, Lisa Anne Hen- dricks, Kirsty Anderson, Pushmeet Kohli, Ben Cop- pin, and Po-Sen Huang. 2021. Challenges in detoxi- fying language models. Findings of EMNLP.
  37. Dani Yogatama, Cyprien de Masson d'Autume, and Lingpeng Kong. 2021. Adaptive semiparametric lan- guage models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
  38. Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Hellaswag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? In ACL.
  39. Jingyi Zhang, Masao Utiyama, Eiichro Sumita, Gra- ham Neubig, and Satoshi Nakamura. 2018. Guiding neural machine translation with retrieved translation pieces. In NAACL.
  40. Yangqiaoyu Zhou and Chenhao Tan. 2021. Investigat- ing the effect of natural language explanations on out-of-distribution generalization in few-shot NLI. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Insights from Negative Results in NLP, pages 117-124, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  41. Yaoming Zhu, Sidi Lu, Lei Zheng, Jiaxian Guo, Weinan Zhang, Jun Wang, and Yong Yu. 2018. Texygen: A benchmarking platform for text generation models. In The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR '18, page 1097-1100, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, B., Ping, W., Xu, P., McAfee, L., Liu, Z., Shoeybi, M., Dong, Y., Kuchaiev, O., Li, B., Xiao, C., Anandkumar, A., & Catanzaro, B.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin System (US)
Corresponding author
Ping, Wei
Venue
Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Published
2023
Pages
7763-7786
OpenAlex
W4389519070
Cited by
21
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3
FWCI
3.72
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
pre-training, autoregressive language models, language model pretraining

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review