Fine-Tuning or Retrieval? Comparing Knowledge Injection in LLMs
Open accessAbstract
Large language models (LLMs) encapsulate a vast amount of factual information within their pre-trained weights, as evidenced by their ability to answer diverse questions across different domains. However, this knowledge is inherently limited, relying heavily on the characteristics of the training data. Consequently, using external datasets to incorporate new information or refine the capabilities of LLMs on previously seen information poses a significant challenge. In this study, we compare two common approaches: unsupervised fine-tuning and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). We evaluate both approaches on a variety of knowledge-intensive tasks across different topics. Our findings reveal that while unsupervised fine-tuning offers some improvement, RAG consistently outperforms it, both for existing knowledge encountered during training and entirely new knowledge. Moreover, we find that LLMs struggle to learn new factual information through unsupervised fine-tuning, and that exposing them to numerous variations of the same fact during training could alleviate this problem.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Current works on knowledge injection mainly focus on adding fact-based knowledge to LLMs.
“Current works on knowledge injection mainly focus on adding fact-based knowledge to LLMs (Ovadia et al., 2023; Fu et al., 2023; Mecklenburg et al., 2024) and note that knowledge injection remains an open challenge (Fu et al., 2023).”
From On the Way to LLM Personalization: Learning to Remember User Conversations (2024) · cites this paper as Ovadia et al., 2023
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 143
- Authors
- Ovadia, O., Brief, M., Mishaeli, M., & Elisha, O.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Pages
- 237-250
- arXiv
- 2312.05934
- OpenAlex
- W4404782930
- Cited by
- 143
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 37 · 2025: 68 · 2024: 38
- FWCI
- 41.87
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (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 › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Keywords
- knowledge injection, large language models, unsupervised fine-tuning, retrieval-augmented generation, knowledge-intensive tasks
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