PreprintCited by 50Topic ModelingMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsNatural Language Processing Techniques

Rethinking with Retrieval: Faithful Large Language Model Inference

Open access
He, Hangfeng, Zhang, Hongming, Roth, Dan·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Despite the success of large language models (LLMs) in various natural language processing (NLP) tasks, the stored knowledge in these models may inevitably be incomplete, out-of-date, or incorrect. This motivates the need to utilize external knowledge to assist LLMs. Unfortunately, current methods for incorporating external knowledge often require additional training or fine-tuning, which can be costly and may not be feasible for LLMs. To address this issue, we propose a novel post-processing approach, rethinking with retrieval (RR), which retrieves relevant external knowledge based on the decomposed reasoning steps obtained from the chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting. This lightweight approach does not require additional training or fine-tuning and is not limited by the input length of LLMs. We evaluate the effectiveness of RR through extensive experiments with GPT-3 on three complex reasoning tasks: commonsense reasoning, temporal reasoning, and tabular reasoning. Our results show that RR can produce more faithful explanations and improve the performance of LLMs.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2301.00303

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Large language models suffer from knowledge outdating.

    “Although these models have shown remarkable general abilities (Bang et al. 2023; Guo et al. 2023), they still suffer severely from challenges including factual hallucination (Cao et al. 2020; Raunak, Menezes, and Junczys-Dowmunt 2021; Ji et al. 2023), knowledge outdating (He, Zhang, and Roth 2022), and the lack of domainspecific expertise (Li et al. 2023c; Shen et al. 2023).”

    From Benchmarking Large Language Models in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (2024) · cites this paper as He, Zhang, and Roth 2022

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 50

Authors
He, H., Zhang, H., & Roth, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of Rochester (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4313483736
Cited by
50
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 20
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
retrieval-augmented generation, large language models, chain-of-thought prompting, external knowledge retrieval, post-processing, commonsense reasoning, temporal reasoning, tabular reasoning, GPT-3

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