Cited by 5Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorTopic ModelingMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

MRAG: A Modular Retrieval Framework for Time-Sensitive Question Answering

Open access
Zhang, Siyue, Xue, Yuxiang, Zhang, Yiming, Wu, Xiaobao, Luu, Anh Tuan, Zhao, Chen·2025·Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025

Abstract

Understanding temporal concepts and answering time-sensitive questions is crucial yet a challenging task for question-answering systems powered by large language models (LLMs).Existing approaches either update the parametric knowledge of LLMs with new facts, which is resource-intensive and often impractical, or integrate LLMs with external knowledge retrieval (i.e., retrieval-augmented generation).However, off-the-shelf retrievers often struggle to identify relevant documents that require intensive temporal reasoning.To systematically study time-sensitive question answering, we introduce the TEMPRAGEVAL benchmark, which repurposes existing datasets by incorporating complex temporal perturbations and gold evidence labels.As anticipated, all existing retrieval methods struggle with these temporal reasoning-intensive questions.We further propose Modular Retrieval (MRAG), a trainless framework that includes three modules: (1) Question Processing that decomposes question into a main content and a temporal constraint;(2) Retrieval and Summarization that retrieves, splits, and summarize evidence passages based on the main content; (3) Semantic-Temporal Hybrid Ranking that scores semantic and temporal relevance separately for each fine-grained evidence.On TEMPRAGEVAL, MRAG significantly outperforms baseline retrievers in retrieval performance, leading to further improvements in final answer accuracy.

Overview

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/v1/2025.findings-emnlp.167

Cites

0 citation errors · 5 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Akari Asai, Zeqiu Wu, Yizhong Wang, Avirup Sil, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2024. Self-rag: Learning to re- trieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection. In International Conference on Learning Representa- tions.
  2. Gautier Izacard, Mathilde Caron, Lucas Hosseini, Sebas- tian Riedel, Piotr Bojanowski, Armand Joulin, and Edouard Grave. 2021. Unsupervised dense informa- tion retrieval with contrastive learning. Transactions on Machine Learning Research.
  3. Nikhil Kandpal, Haikang Deng, Adam Roberts, Eric Wallace, and Colin Raffel. 2023. Large language models struggle to learn long-tail knowledge. In In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 15696-15707.
  4. PMLR.
  5. Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open- domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP).
  6. Zhaochen Su, Jun Zhang, Tong Zhu, Xiaoye Qu, Juntao Li, Min Zhang, and Yu Cheng. 2024b. Timo: To- wards better temporal reasoning for language models. Proceedings of the Conference on Language Model.
  7. Xiaobao Wu, Liangming Pan, William Yang Wang, and Anh Tuan Luu. 2024a. AKEW: Assessing knowl- edge editing in the wild. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 5

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, S., Xue, Y., Zhang, Y., Wu, X., Luu, A. T., & Zhao, C.
Affiliations
Nanyang Technological University (SG)
Venue
Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025
Published
2025
Pages
3080-3118
OpenAlex
W4416035935
Cited by
3
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3
FWCI
3.59
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • New York University Shanghai
  • Nanyang Technological University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
temporal reasoning, retrieval-augmented generation, temporal perturbation, question decomposition, large language models

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