The DOI matches its DataCite record; 238 of the 239 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; 27 of the 36 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey
Open accessAbstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) showcase impressive capabilities but encounter challenges like hallucination, outdated knowledge, and non-transparent, untraceable reasoning processes. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising solution by incorporating knowledge from external databases. This enhances the accuracy and credibility of the generation, particularly for knowledge-intensive tasks, and allows for continuous knowledge updates and integration of domain-specific information. RAG synergistically merges LLMs' intrinsic knowledge with the vast, dynamic repositories of external databases. This comprehensive review paper offers a detailed examination of the progression of RAG paradigms, encompassing the Naive RAG, the Advanced RAG, and the Modular RAG. It meticulously scrutinizes the tripartite foundation of RAG frameworks, which includes the retrieval, the generation and the augmentation techniques. The paper highlights the state-of-the-art technologies embedded in each of these critical components, providing a profound understanding of the advancements in RAG systems. Furthermore, this paper introduces up-to-date evaluation framework and benchmark. At the end, this article delineates the challenges currently faced and points out prospective avenues for research and development.
Verified 2026-10-11 · 1 reference not checked yet
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
63 Own interpretation · 17 Couldn’t confirm · 14 No basis given · 7 Partly supported · 7 Sources not found · 1 No full text of the sources · 1 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Additionally, it was found that LLMs struggle to learn new factual information through unsupervised finetuning.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > D. RAG vs Fine-tuning
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [28] 28. Z. Dai, V. Y. Zhao, J. Ma, Y. Luan, J. Ni, J. Lu, A. Bakalov, K. Guu, K. B. Hall, and M.-W. Chang, "Promptagator: Few-shot dense retrieval from 8 examples," arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.11755, 2022. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Related Work section (p. 9) distinguishes prompting from fine-tuning LLMs but does not assess whether fine-tuning teaches them new facts. Searches for learning new factual information and unsupervised fine-tuning found no passage addressing that claim; the paper instead studies few-shot query generation for retrieval. (LLM, conf=0.74)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“and overly long contexts can also lead LLM to the”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > A. Context Curation
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [98] 98. Y. Wang, N. Lipka, R. A. Rossi, A. Siu, R. Zhang, and T. Derr, "Knowledge graph prompting for multi-document question answering," arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.11730, 2023. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The KNN-ST/MDR KG Construction section says that retrieving redundant passages can compromise LLMs’ multi-document question-answering capability. That supports the general concern about excessive context, but our copy does not identify the specific “lost in the middle” problem or say that information in the middle of a long context is overlooked. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Validated expanded queries typically exhibit higher reliability [93].”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Chain-of-Verification(CoVe).
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [93] 93. M. Gaur, K. Gunaratna, V. Srinivasan, and H. Jin, "Iseeq: Information seeking question generation using dynamic meta-information retrieval and knowledge graphs," in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 36, no. 10, 2022, pp. 10 672-10 680. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Evaluation and Results section (p. 5) reports performance gains from semantic query expansion and says it helps generate questions that better match ground truth. The paper does not establish that validated expanded queries typically have higher reliability; its reported outcomes concern retrieval and question-generation performance, not reliability after validation. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“To optimize the multi-task capabilities of LLM, UP-RISE [20] trained a lightweight prompt retriever that can automatically retrieve prompts from a pre-built prompt pool that are suitable for a given zero-shot task input.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > E. Adapter
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [20] 20. W. Yu, D. Iter, S. Wang, Y. Xu, M. Ju, S. Sanyal, C. Zhu, M. Zeng, and M. Jiang, "Generate rather than retrieve: Large language models are strong context generators," arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.10063, 2022. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (p. 2) and §3.2.2 (p. 5) describe this paper’s clustering-based prompts for generating documents, while §B.2 (p. 26) describes prompts written by human annotators. A search for UP-RISE and a trained retriever selecting prompts from a pre-built pool found no passage addressing the attributed method. The different method described here does not, by itself, establish a contradiction about UP-RISE. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“A typical approach, such as RA-DIT [27], aligns the scoring functions between Retriever and Generator using KL divergence.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > B. LLM Fine-tuning
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [27] 27. D. Cheng, S. Huang, J. Bi, Y. Zhan, J. Liu, Y. Wang, H. Sun, F. Wei, D. Deng, and Q. Zhang, "Uprise: Universal prompt retrieval for improving zero-shot evaluation," arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08518, 2023. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.3, “Retriever Tuning,” describes UPRISE training its prompt retriever with InfoNCE loss, not RA-DIT. Searches for RA-DIT and KL-divergence alignment found no passage in our copy addressing RA-DIT’s scoring functions, so this paper cannot verify the cited claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To tackle the indexing issues, Advanced RAG refines its indexing techniques through the use of a sliding window approach, fine-grained segmentation, and the incorporation of metadata.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > B. Advanced RAG
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Choosing the appropriate retrieval granularity during inference can be a simple and effective strategy to improve the retrieval and downstream task performance of dense retrievers.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Augmentation Stage
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In some instances, their combined use may lead to optimal performance.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > D. RAG vs Fine-tuning
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This enhances the accuracy and credibility of the generation, particularly for knowledge-intensive tasks, and allows for continuous knowledge updates and integration of domainspecific information.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By referencing external knowledge, RAG effectively reduces the problem of generating factually incorrect content.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > I. INTRODUCTION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 44
- Probably not a substantial claim. 72
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Coarse-grained retrieval units theoretically can provide more relevant information for the problem, but they may also contain redundant content, which could distract the retriever and language models in downstream tasks [50], [87].”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Augmentation Stage
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [50] 50. J. Huang, W. Ping, P. Xu, M. Shoeybi, K. C.-C. Chang, and B. Catan- zaro, "Raven: In-context learning with retrieval augmented encoder- decoder language models," arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07922, 2023. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and §3.1 describe retrieving relevant passages, and the ‘Effect of Number of Retrieved Passages’ section reports benefits from retrieving more passages. None addresses coarse-grained retrieval units or says their redundant content can distract retrievers or language models. Searches for redundancy, passage granularity, and chunk size found no passage supporting that tradeoff. (LLM, conf=0.72)
- Could not verifycites [87] 87. P. Ranade and A. Joshi, "Fabula: Intelligence report generation using retrieval-augmented narrative construction," arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13848, 2023. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Information Retrieval & Knowledge Representation and Retrieval-Augmented Intelligence Report Generation sections describe retrieval and its use in prompting, but do not discuss the size of retrieval units. Searches for coarse-grained units, redundant content, and distraction of retrievers or language models found no passage addressing that trade-off. (LLM, conf=0.74)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Structured data, such as knowledge graphs (KGs) [86] , which are typically verified and can provide more precise information.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Augmentation Stage
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [86] 86. T. Shi, L. Li, Z. Lin, T. Yang, X. Quan, and Q. Wang, "Dual-feedback knowledge retrieval for task-oriented dialogue systems," arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14528, 2023. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) says task-oriented dialogue systems use external knowledge bases to retrieve relevant entity information and may need localized knowledge for specific tasks. That supports the general usefulness of structured knowledge, but the paper does not say knowledge graphs are typically verified or establish that they provide more precise information. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“In multiple evaluations of their performance on various knowledge-intensive tasks across different topics, [28] revealed that while unsupervised fine-tuning shows some improvement, RAG consistently outperforms it, for both existing knowledge encountered during training and entirely new knowledge.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > D. RAG vs Fine-tuning
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [28] 28. Z. Dai, V. Y. Zhao, J. Ma, Y. Luan, J. Ni, J. Lu, A. Bakalov, K. Guu, K. B. Hall, and M.-W. Chang, "Promptagator: Few-shot dense retrieval from 8 examples," arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.11755, 2022. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Reranking fundamentally reorders document chunks to highlight the most pertinent results first, effectively reducing the overall document pool, severing a dual purpose in information retrieval, acting as both an enhancer and a filter, delivering refined inputs for more precise language model processing [70].”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > A. Context Curation
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [70] 70. P. Sarthi, S. Abdullah, A. Tuli, S. Khanna, A. Goldie, and C. D. Manning, "Raptor: Recursive abstractive processing for tree-organized retrieval," arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.18059, 2024. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The bridge model aims to transform the retrieved information into a format that LLMs can work with effectively, allowing it to not only rerank but also dynamically select passages for each query, and potentially employ more advanced strategies like repetition.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > E. Adapter
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [26] 26. X. Li, E. Nie, and S. Liang, "From classification to generation: Insights into crosslingual retrieval augmented icl," arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.06595, 2023. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Reranking can be performed using rule-based methods that depend on predefined metrics like Diversity, Relevance, and MRR, or model-based approaches like Encoder-Decoder models from the BERT series (e.g., SpanBERT), specialized reranking models such as Cohere rerank or bge-raranker-large, and general large language models like GPT [12], [99].”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > A. Context Curation
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [12] 12. S. Borgeaud, A. Mensch, J. Hoffmann, T. Cai, E. Rutherford, K. Milli- can, G. B. Van Den Driessche, J.-B. Lespiau, B. Damoc, A. Clark et al., "Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens," in International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2022, pp. 2206-2240. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Could not verifycites [99] 99. D. Zhou, N. Schärli, L. Hou, J. Wei, N. Scales, X. Wang, D. Schu- urmans, C. Cui, O. Bousquet, Q. Le et al., "Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models," arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10625, 2022. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“HyDE [11] construct hypothetical documents (assumed answers to the original query).It focuses on embedding similarity from answer to answer rather than seeking embedding similarity for the problem or query.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Chain-of-Verification(CoVe).
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [11] 11. P. Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, V. Karpukhin, N. Goyal, H. Küttler, M. Lewis, W.-t. Yih, T. Rocktäschel et al., "Retrieval- augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks," Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 9459-9474, 2020. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (p. 1) and §2.2 (p. 3) describe RAG retrieving documents using a query encoder and document embeddings. Searches for HyDE and hypothetical documents found no passage describing HyDE’s construction of assumed answers or its answer-to-answer embedding similarity, so our copy cannot verify the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“BGM [26] keeps the retriever and LLM fixed,and trains a bridge Seq2Seq model in between.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > E. Adapter
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [26] 26. X. Li, E. Nie, and S. Liang, "From classification to generation: Insights into crosslingual retrieval augmented icl," arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.06595, 2023. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Sections 3.1–3.2 describe cross-lingual retrieval followed by prompt construction for a multilingual language model. Searches for BGM, a trained bridge Seq2Seq model, and fixed retriever and LLM components found no passage addressing the claimed architecture in our copy; page numbers were not provided. (LLM, conf=0.74)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“(Long) LLMLingua [100], [101] utilize small language models (SLMs) such as GPT-2 Small or LLaMA-7B, to detect and remove unimportant tokens, transforming it into a form that is challenging for humans to comprehend but well understood by LLMs.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > A. Context Curation
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [100] 100. S. Dhuliawala, M. Komeili, J. Xu, R. Raileanu, X. Li, A. Celikyilmaz, and J. Weston, "Chain-of-verification reduces hallucination in large language models," arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11495, 2023. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (p. 1) discusses hallucinations, while the Baselines section (p. 6) discusses Llama models and post-processing, not LLMLingua. Searches for LLMLingua, GPT-2 Small, and prompt compression found no passage describing the claimed token-removal method. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Could not verifycites [101] 101. X. Li and J. Li, "Angle-optimized text embeddings," arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12871, 2023. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion and Analysis section describes LLMs labeling data for AnglE training, not LLMLingua or token removal. Searches for LLMLingua, GPT-2 Small, and prompt compression found no passage in our copy addressing the claimed method or its readability. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Furthermore, PKG introduces an innovative method for integrating knowledge into white-box models via directive fine-tuning [75].”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > E. Adapter
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [75] 75. P. Jain, L. B. Soares, and T. Kwiatkowski, "1-pager: One pass answer generation and evidence retrieval," arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16568, 2023. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Generative Retrieval and Constrained Decoding and FM-Index sections describe 1-PAGER’s keyword-path retrieval and constrained decoding, not a method called PKG. Searches for PKG, white-box models, and directive fine-tuning found no passage addressing the attributed method. The cited paper therefore does not verify this claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“While PRCA [69] add a pluggable reward-driven contextual adapter to enhance performance on specific tasks.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > E. Adapter
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [69] 69. R. Ren, Y. Wang, Y. Qu, W. X. Zhao, J. Liu, H. Tian, H. Wu, J.- R. Wen, and H. Wang, "Investigating the factual knowledge boundary of large language models with retrieval augmentation," arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.11019, 2023. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.2.2 describes dynamically introducing retrieved documents based on an LLM’s prior judgment, not PRCA or a reward-driven contextual adapter. Searches for “PRCA” and “reward-driven contextual adapter” found no passage in our copy addressing the attributed method. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“AAR (Augmentation-Adapted Retriver) [47] introduces a universal adapter designed to accommodate multiple downstream tasks.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > E. Adapter
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [47] 47. B. Jin, H. Zeng, G. Wang, X. Chen, T. Wei, R. Li, Z. Wang, Z. Li, Y. Li, H. Lu et al., "Language models as semantic indexers," arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07815, 2023. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.4 and Chapter 5 describe LMIndexer being fine-tuned for multiple downstream tasks, not an AAR universal adapter. Searches for “AAR,” “adapter,” and “Augmentation-Adapted Retriever” found no passage in our copy addressing the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“PROMPTAGATOR [21] utilizes the LLM as a few-shot query generator to create task-specific retrievers, addressing challenges in supervised fine-tuning, particularly in data-scarce domains.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > D. Embedding
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [21] 21. Z. Shao, Y. Gong, Y. Shen, M. Huang, N. Duan, and W. Chen, "Enhancing retrieval-augmented large language models with iterative retrieval-generation synergy," arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15294, 2023. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction describes this paper’s method as ITER-RETGEN, which iterates retrieval and generation and can adapt retrieval using model outputs. Searches for “PROMPTAGATOR” and for few-shot query generation found no passage in our copy addressing the attributed method or its use in data-scarce domains. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“For retrieval tasks that engage with structured data, the SANTA framework [76] implements a tripartite training regimen to effectively encapsulate both structural and semantic nuances.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > B. LLM Fine-tuning
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [76] 76. H. Yang, Z. Li, Y. Zhang, J. Wang, N. Cheng, M. Li, and J. Xiao, "Prca: Fitting black-box large language models for retrieval question answer- ing via pluggable reward-driven contextual adapter," arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.18347, 2023. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s Section 3.1 describes a two-stage training strategy for PRCA, not a training regimen for SANTA. Searches for SANTA, tripartite training, and structured-data retrieval found no passage addressing the attributed claim. The difference in stage counts does not contradict a claim about a different framework. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In this approach, the retriever module is directly substituted to generate relevant documents according to a query.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > E. Adapter
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [75] 75. P. Jain, L. B. Soares, and T. Kwiatkowski, "1-pager: One pass answer generation and evidence retrieval," arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16568, 2023. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3, “Iterative Corpus Partitioning and Answer Prediction” (page unavailable), says 1-PAGER replaces a separate retrieval-and-answer-generation pipeline with a single sequence-to-sequence model. But the model generates keyword search paths to select relevant documents from a corpus; it does not generate the documents themselves. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“REPLUG [72] utilizes a retriever and an LLM to calculate the probability distributions of the retrieved documents and then performs supervised training by computing the KL divergence.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > D. Embedding
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [72] 72. Y. Ren, Y. Cao, P. Guo, F. Fang, W. Ma, and Z. Lin, "Retrieve-and- sample: Document-level event argument extraction via hybrid retrieval augmentation," in Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 2023, pp. 293-306. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and §2.3 describe this paper’s retrieval-augmented event argument extraction method and its negative-log-likelihood training objective. Searches for REPLUG, retrieved-document probability distributions, and KL divergence found no passage addressing how REPLUG is trained. The different objective used by this paper does not establish a contrary claim about REPLUG. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The implementation of the query rewrite method in the Taobao, known as BEQUE [9] has notably enhanced recall effectiveness for long-tail queries, resulting in a rise in GMV.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Chain-of-Verification(CoVe).
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [9] 9. Y. Zhang, Y. Li, L. Cui, D. Cai, L. Liu, T. Fu, X. Huang, E. Zhao, Y. Zhang, Y. Chen et al., "Siren's song in the ai ocean: A survey on hal- lucination in large language models," arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01219, 2023. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The passages from §5.4.2 and §5.5 discuss retrieval and query refinement for reducing LLM hallucinations, not Taobao search. Searches for BEQUE, long-tail queries, recall effectiveness, and GMV found no passage in our copy addressing the claimed implementation or its results. (LLM, conf=0.78)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“ITER-RETGEN [14] employs a synergistic approach that leverages”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > A. Iterative Retrieval
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [14] 14. X. Ma, Y. Gong, P. He, H. Zhao, and N. Duan, "Query rewrit- ing for retrieval-augmented large language models," arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14283, 2023. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and §3.1 describe the paper’s Rewrite-Retrieve-Read framework, not ITER-RETGEN. Searches for ITER-RETGEN, the two named generation–retrieval approaches, and the task description found no passage in our copy addressing the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In the domain of RAG, the standard practice often involves a singular (once) retrieval step followed by generation, which can lead to inefficiencies and sometimes is typically insufficient for complex problems demanding multi-step reasoning, as it provides a limited scope of information [105].”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > V. AUGMENTATION PROCESS IN RAG
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [105] 105. N. F. Liu, K. Lin, J. Hewitt, A. Paranjape, M. Bevilacqua, F. Petroni, and P. Liang, "Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts," arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03172, 2023. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To overcome challenges, Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enhances LLMs by retrieving relevant document chunks from external knowledge base through semantic similarity calculation.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > I. INTRODUCTION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“RAG excels in dynamic environments by offering realtime knowledge updates and effective utilization of external knowledge sources with high interpretability.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > D. RAG vs Fine-tuning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Handling semi-structured data poses challenges for conventional RAG systems due to two main reasons.Firstly, text splitting processes may inadvertently separate tables, leading to data corruption during retrieval.Secondly, incorporating tables into the data can complicate semantic similarity searches.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Augmentation Stage
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Advanced RAG introduces specific improvements to overcome the limitations of Naive RAG.Focusing on enhancing retrieval quality, it employs pre-retrieval and post-retrieval strategies.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > B. Advanced RAG
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This comprehensive review paper offers a detailed examination of the progression of RAG paradigms, encompassing the Naive RAG, the Advanced RAG, and the Modular RAG.”
- Also stated in: § II. OVERVIEW OF RAG · plain
“The RAG research paradigm is continuously evolving, and we categorize it into three stages: Naive RAG, Advanced RAG, and Modular RAG, as showed in Figure 3.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § II. OVERVIEW OF RAG · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“RAG relies on external knowledge to enhance LLMs, while the type of retrieval source and the granularity of retrieval units both affect the final generation results.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > A. Retrieval Source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Feeding all relevant documents directly into LLMs can lead to information overload, diluting the focus on key details with irrelevant content.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > B. Advanced RAG
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The modular RAG architecture advances beyond the former two RAG paradigms, offering enhanced adaptability and versatility.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > C. Modular RAG
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The process may also encounter redundancy when similar information is retrieved from multiple sources, leading to repetitive responses.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Generation Difficulties.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Facing complex issues, a single retrieval based on the original query may not suffice to acquire adequate context information.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Generation Difficulties.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The retrieval phase often struggles with precision and recall, leading to the selection of misaligned or irrelevant chunks, and the missing of crucial information.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Retrieval.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite its distinctiveness, Modular RAG builds upon the foundational principles of Advanced and Naive RAG, illustrating a progression and refinement within the RAG family.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > C. Modular RAG
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main methods in post-retrieval process include rerank chunks and context compressing.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > B. Advanced RAG
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The development of Advanced RAG and Modular RAG is a response to these specific shortcomings in Naive RAG.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > II. OVERVIEW OF RAG
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Large Language Models (LLMs) showcase impressive capabilities but encounter challenges like hallucination, outdated knowledge, and non-transparent, untraceable reasoning processes.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1] 1. TriviaQA(TQA) [113]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [2] 2. 25], [67] MS MARCO [117]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unstructured Data, such as text, is the most widely used retrieval source, which are mainly gathered from corpus.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Augmentation Stage
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, there's a concern that generation models might overly rely on augmented information, leading to outputs that simply echo retrieved content without adding insightful or synthesized information.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Generation Difficulties.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the other hand, fine-grained retrieval unit granularity increases the burden of retrieval and does not guarantee semantic integrity and meeting the required knowledge.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Augmentation Stage
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“RAG synergistically merges LLMs' intrinsic knowledge with the vast, dynamic repositories of external databases.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, it comes with higher latency and ethical considerations regarding data retrieval.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > D. RAG vs Fine-tuning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Integrating retrieved information with the different task can be challenging, sometimes resulting in disjointed or incoherent outputs.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Generation Difficulties.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The quality of index construction determines whether the correct context can be obtained in the retrieval phase.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > B. Indexing Optimization
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This phase can also suffer from irrelevance, toxicity, or bias in the outputs, detracting from the quality and reliability of the responses.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Generation Difficulties.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, both of these methods are not optimal solutions, indicating substantial research opportunities in this area.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Augmentation Stage
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The shift towards a modular RAG approach is becoming prevalent, supporting both sequential processing and integrated end-to-end training across its components.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > C. Modular RAG
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It demands significant computational resources for dataset preparation and training, and while it can reduce hallucinations, it may face challenges with unfamiliar data.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > D. RAG vs Fine-tuning
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising solution by incorporating knowledge from external databases.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While smaller chunks may not fully convey the necessary context, they do have less noise.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > 1) Chunking Strategy:
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“RAG and FT are not mutually exclusive and can complement each other, enhancing a model's capabilities at different levels.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > D. RAG vs Fine-tuning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the other hand, FT is more static, requiring retraining for updates but enabling deep customization of the model's behavior and style.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > D. RAG vs Fine-tuning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the contrary, it requires additional effort to build, validate, and maintain structured databases.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Augmentation Stage
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This enhances the accuracy and credibility of the generation, particularly for knowledge-intensive tasks, and allows for continuous knowledge updates and integration of domainspecific information.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In generating responses, the model may face the issue of hallucination, where it produces content not supported by the retrieved context.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Generation Difficulties.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite RAG method are cost-effective and surpass the performance of the native LLM, they also exhibit several limitations.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > II. OVERVIEW OF RAG
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Larger chunks can capture more context, but they also generate more noise, requiring longer processing time and higher costs.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > 1) Chunking Strategy:
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A common misconception in the RAG process is the belief that retrieving as many relevant documents as possible and concatenating them to form a lengthy retrieval prompt is beneficial.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > A. Context Curation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sparse and dense embedding approaches capture different relevance features and can benefit from each other by leveraging complementary relevance information.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > D. Embedding
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, pre-training language models (PLMs) can be utilized to learn term weights to enhance sparse retrieval.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > D. Embedding
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Targeted fine-tuning based on the scenario and data characteristics on LLMs can yield better results.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > B. LLM Fine-tuning
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Language models often struggle when dealing with specialized vocabulary or ambiguous abbreviations with multiple meanings.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > C. Query Optimization
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, sparse retrieval models can be used to provide initial search results for training dense retrieval models.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > D. Embedding
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Certainly, a hybrid routing approach can also be employed, combining both semantic and metadata-based methods for enhanced query routing.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Using the Step-back Prompting method
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, some approaches opt to incorporate an external adapter to aid in alignment.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > E. Adapter
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Expanding a single query into multiple queries enriches the content of the query, providing further context to address any lack of specific nuances, thereby ensuring the optimal relevance of the generated answers.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > C. Query Optimization
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Formulating a precise and clear question is difficult, and imprudent queries result in subpar retrieval effectiveness.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > C. Query Optimization
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, using LLM to generate questions that can be answered by the document, then calculating the similarity between the original question and the hypothetical question during retrieval to reduce the semantic gap between the question and the answer.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > 1) Chunking Strategy:
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When LLMs lack data in a specific domain, additional knowledge can be provided to the LLM through fine-tuning.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > B. LLM Fine-tuning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Another approach, LLM-Embedder [97], exploits LLMs to generate reward signals across multiple downstream tasks.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > D. Embedding
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [97] 97. S. Yang, "Advanced rag 01: Small-to- big retrieval," https://towardsdatascience.com/ advanced-rag-01-small-to-big-retrieval-172181b396d4, 2023.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In this paradigm, SLMs serve as filters, while LLMs function as reordering agents.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > A. Context Curation
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [103] 103. BAAI, "Flagembedding," https://github.com/FlagOpen/ FlagEmbedding, 2023.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In instances where the context significantly deviates from pre-training corpus, particularly within highly specialized disciplines such as healthcare, legal practice, and other sectors replete with proprietary jargon, fine-tuning the embedding model on your own domain dataset becomes essential to mitigate such discrepancies.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > D. Embedding
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Ma et al. [103] propose the”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > A. Context Curation
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [103] 103. BAAI, "Flagembedding," https://github.com/FlagOpen/ FlagEmbedding, 2023.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Assigning different weights to document timestamps during retrieval can achieve time-aware RAG, ensuring the freshness of knowledge and avoiding outdated information.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > 1) Chunking Strategy:
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Utilize KG in constructing the hierarchical structure of documents contributes to maintaining consistency.It delineates the connections between different concepts and entities, markedly reducing the potential for illusions.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Knowledge Graph index.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, it also demonstrates that sparse retrieval models can enhance the zero-shot retrieval capability of dense retrieval models and assist dense retrievers in handling queries containing rare entities, thereby improving robustness.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > D. Embedding
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This mainly includes a sparse encoder (BM25) and a dense retriever (BERT architecture Pre-training language models).”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > D. Embedding
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After retrieval, it is not a good practice to directly input all the retrieved information to the LLM for answering questions.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > IV. GENERATION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One effective method for enhancing information retrieval is to establish a hierarchical structure for the documents.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > 1) Chunking Strategy:
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, it can enable LLM to adapt to specific data formats and generate responses in a particular style as instructed [37].”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > B. LLM Fine-tuning
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [37] 37. T. Chen, H. Wang, S. Chen, W. Yu, K. Ma, X. Zhao, D. Yu, and H. Zhang, "Dense x retrieval: What retrieval granularity should we use?" arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06648, 2023. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fine-tuning models may present challenges, such as integrating functionality through an API or addressing constraints arising from limited local computational resources.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > E. Adapter
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“where the semantic representation capability of embedding models plays a key role.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > D. Embedding
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Recent research has introduced prominent embedding models such as AngIE, Voyage, BGE,etc [94]- [96], which are benefit from multi-task instruct tuning.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > D. Embedding
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [94]- [96]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on varying queries, routing to distinct RAG pipeline,which is suitable for a versatile RAG system designed to accommodate diverse scenarios.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > Using the Step-back Prompting method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another benefit of fine-tuning is the ability to adjust the model's input and output.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > B. LLM Fine-tuning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Iterative retrieval is a process where the knowledge base is repeatedly searched based on the initial query and the text generated so far, providing a more comprehensive knowledge”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > A. Iterative Retrieval
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, it may be affected by semantic discontinuity and the accumulation of irrelevant information.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > A. Iterative Retrieval
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When circumstances prevent access to powerful proprietary models or larger parameter open-source models, a simple and effective method is to distill the more powerful models(e.g.GPT-4).”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > B. LLM Fine-tuning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Recursive retrieval is often used in information retrieval and NLP to improve the depth and relevance of search results.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > B. Recursive Retrieval
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Aligning LLM outputs with human or retriever preferences through reinforcement learning is a potential approach.”
§ Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey > B. LLM Fine-tuning
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The field of RAG lacks a systematic synthesis that could clarify its broader trajectory.
“The burgeoning field of RAG has experienced swift growth, yet it has not been accompanied by a systematic synthesis that could clarify its broader trajectory.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Current research tends to focus more on methods, lacking analysis and summarization of how to evaluate RAG.
“On the other hand, current research tends to focus more on methods, lacking analysis and summarization of how to evaluate RAG.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The cited works' reported methods and results are valid as described.
“Recent research has introduced prominent embedding models such as AngIE, Voyage, BGE,etc [94]- [96], which are benefit from multi-task instruct tuning.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The taxonomy of RAG paradigms (Naive, Advanced, Modular) captures the main developments in the field.
“The analysis outlines three developmental paradigms within the RAG framework: Naive, Advanced, and Modular RAG, each representing a progressive enhancement over its predecessors.”
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 cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“While emerging methods like Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) incorporate plaintext memory, they lack lifecycle management and multi-modal integration, limiting their capacity for long-term knowledge evolution.”
From MemOS: An Operating System for Memory-Augmented Generation (MAG) in Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [10]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“benchmarks for retrieval and reasoning across the scientific literature today are underdeveloped. They do not consider the entire literature, but instead are restricted to abstracts 6 , retrieval on a fixed corpus 7 , or simply provide the relevant paper directly 8 . These benchmarks are not suitable as performance proxies for real scientific research tasks”
From Language agents achieve superhuman synthesis of scientific knowledge (2024) · cites this paper as [8]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The tool's prior step, an top-k vector retrieval ranking, is a widely implemented 7,8 approach to identify relevant documents”
From Language agents achieve superhuman synthesis of scientific knowledge (2024) · cites this paper as [8]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“RAG fundamentally breaks the probabilistic chain that causes citation hallucination by grounding the model in verified external databases”
From A Meta-Synthesis of Factual Accuracy and Citation Hallucination in LLM Academic Assistants (2026) · cites this paper as [13]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“RAG incorporation ensures GenAI agents access relevant and accurate knowledge for context-specific prompts (Gao et al., 2023; Lewis et al., 2020).”
From The effects of generative AI agents and scaffolding on enhancing students’ comprehension of visual learning analytics (2025) · cites this paper as Gao et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“For instance, within the Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) framework [252, 253], a retriever that demonstrates high 'recall' in a particular test set may not enhance the performance of subsequent questionanswering tasks.”
From Human-inspired Perspectives: A Survey on AI Long-term Memory (2024) · cites this paper as [252]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Existing paradigms typically follow a two-stage process: computationally expensive memory construction (e.g., structuring data into graphs) followed by naive retrieval-augmented generation.”
From Chain-of-Memory: Lightweight Memory Construction with Dynamic Evolution for LLM Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Gao et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“While interest in RAG continues to grow, most prior work has focused either on architectural innovations [10] or on isolated components such as retriever and generator design [11].”
From Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) in Healthcare: A Comprehensive Review (2025) · cites this paper as [10]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This approach is simple but suffers from limitations at multiple stages. It retrieves irrelevant or redundant content, struggles to synthesize fragmented information across documents, and generates responses that are unverified by the retrieved evidence due to a lack of explicit alignment between retrieval and generation.”
From Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) in Healthcare: A Comprehensive Review (2025) · cites this paper as [10]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Naïve RAG employs a fixed, non-trainable retriever based on sparse methods (like TF-IDF or BM25) and a frozen LLM [10].”
From Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) in Healthcare: A Comprehensive Review (2025) · cites this paper as [10]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In addition, RAG’s unique advantage in biomedical applications lies in its ability to adapt to dynamic environments by delivering up-to-date information and efficiently integrating external knowledge sources with high interpretability.6”
From Improving large language model applications in biomedicine with retrieval-augmented generation: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and clinical development guidelines (2025) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Architecturally, memory systems can combine structured databases, vector-based retrieval mechanisms, and external information stores [16].”
From Medical AI Agents for Clinical Decision Support: Viewpoint Using the Planning, Action, Reflection, and Memory (PARM) Analytical Lens (2026) · cites this paper as [16]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“it is widely acknowledged that retrieval systems possesses a irreplaceable position in modern LLM applications due to its diverse nature and significant importance [84]”
From Foundations of GenIR (2025) · cites this paper as [84]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Despite considerable technical interventions aimed at reducing hallucinations-such as chain-of-thought and retrieval-augmented generation prompting (Gao et al. 2023;Lee et al. 2024)-hallucinations remain a persistent limitation of LLMs.”
From Bridging risk and retention: risk coping with privacy and hallucination in AI (2026) · cites this paper as Gao et al. 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This method models memory as a flat, similarity-based retrieval system, which has been shown to be sensitive to noise, prone to retrieving irrelevant or redundant context, and is limited in its ability to support multi-hop reasoning or maintain coherent long-term knowledge Gao et al. [2023].”
From Selective Forgetting: A Graph-Based Memory Framework for Long-Term LLM Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Gao et al. [2023]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This structure-aware retrieval enables multi-hop reasoning that flat semantic search cannot support [Lewis et al., 2020, Gao et al., 2023].”
From Accurate and Efficient Long-Term Memory for LLM Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Gao et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“There may also be situations where the knowledge database might contain conflicting or contradictory information, making it unclear which pieces of relevant information to extract (Wang et al. 2023; Yu et al. 2023; Gao et al. 2023).”
From Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Gao et al. 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Retrieval-Augmented Generation grounds LLM outputs in external evidence retrieved at inference time (Lewis et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2023).”
From Membox: Weaving Topic Continuity into Long-Range Memory for LLM Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Gao et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“RAG generally proceeds in three stages [260]: (i) context retrieval , where relevant documents are retrieved using lexical-based methods (based on sparse representations) or semanticbased methods (based on dense embeddings); (ii) prompt construction , where the retrieved information is incorporated into the model's prompt along with task instructions.”
From A Survey of Large Language Models (2026) · cites this paper as [260]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“RAG retrieves information from external data sources ('non-parametric memory') and produces responses that are informed by the retrieved information.”
From Human-inspired Perspectives: A Survey on AI Long-term Memory (2024) · cites this paper as [252]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising solution to address the limitations of standalone generative models, including hallucinations, outdated knowledge, limited domain-specific understanding, and factual inconsistencies [8].”
From Enhancing Medical Question Answering with LLMs via a Hybrid Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“By incorporating external information retrieval, RAG enhances generative models with improved accuracy and credibility for knowledge-intensive tasks.”
From Enhancing Medical Question Answering with LLMs via a Hybrid Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Advanced RAG (as illustrated in Figure 3) addresses the limitations of naïve RAG through a three-stage pipeline: pre-retrieval, retrieval, and post-retrieval enhancements [10].”
From Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) in Healthcare: A Comprehensive Review (2025) · cites this paper as [10]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This enables the agents to retrieve pertinent information based on the cosine similarity of the embeddings (Gao et al., 2023).”
From The effects of generative AI agents and scaffolding on enhancing students’ comprehension of visual learning analytics (2025) · cites this paper as Gao et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“After ChatGPT [1] demonstrated superior ability text generation at the end of 2022, there have been many studies and surveys on RAG and its applications in LLMs [84, 90, 91].”
From Foundations of GenIR (2025) · cites this paper as [84]
In the citing paper
“Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) [Chen et al., 2024;Lewis et al., 2020;Gao et al., 2023] has attracted significant attention as a promising approach to overcome the knowledge limitations of LLMs resulting from static pretraining.”
From Reasoning RAG via System 1 or System 2: A Survey on Reasoning Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Industry Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Gao et al., 2023
In the citing paper
“While modern Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems (Lewis et al., 2020) share surface similarities with CBR, they typically query static document corpora and lack mechanisms for continual adaptation (Gao et al., 2023).”
From Memento: Fine-tuning LLM Agents without Fine-tuning LLMs (2025) · cites this paper as Gao et al., 2023
Citations
Cites
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03762 · Cited by 120,404 · cited 1×
“Both architectures utilize the Trans-former [Vaswani et al. , 2017] as the foundational block and optimize with Negative Log-Likelihood loss.”
MethodLanguage Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372 · cited 1×
“Large language models (LLMs) such as the GPT series [Brown et al. , 2020, OpenAI, 2023] and the LLama series [Touvron et al. , 2023], along with other models like Gemini [Google, 2023], have achieved remarkable success in natural language processing, demonstrating supe-∗ rior performance on various…”
BackgroundExploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer
Raffel, C., Shazeer, N., Roberts, A., Lee, K., Narang, S., Matena, M., Zhou, Y., Li, W., & Liu, P. J. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.10683 · Cited by 10,929 · cited 1×
“Atlas[Izacard et al. , 2022] also incorporates a retrieval mechanism into the T5 architecture [Raffel et al. , 2020] in both the pre-training and fine-tuning stages.”
BackgroundScaling Laws for Neural Language Models
Kaplan, J., McCandlish, S., Henighan, T., Brown, T. B., Chess, B., Child, R., Gray, S., Radford, A., Wu, J., & Amodei, D. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.08361 · Cited by 9,550 · cited 1×
“While scaling laws [Kaplan et al. , 2020] are established for LLMs, their applicability to RAG remains uncertain.”
BackgroundRecursive Deep Models for Semantic Compositionality Over a Sentiment Treebank
Socher, R., Perelygin, A., Wu, J., Chuang, J., Manning, C. D., Ng, A., & Potts, C. (2013) · Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d13-1170 · Cited by 6,878
SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Text
Rajpurkar, P., Zhang, J., Lopyrev, K., & Liang, P. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d16-1264 · Cited by 6,208
Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering
Karpukhin, V., Oğuz, B., Min, S., Lewis, P., Wu, L., Edunov, S., Chen, D., & Yih, W.-T. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.04906 · Cited by 5,311
Pointer Sentinel Mixture ModelsPreprint
Merity, S., Xiong, C., Bradbury, J., & Socher, R. (2016) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1609.07843 · Cited by 5,058
Chain-Of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models
Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q. V., & Zhou, D. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-1800 · Cited by 4,505 · cited 1×
“The optimization process involving RAG and FT can necessitate multiple iterations to achieve satisfactory results.”
MethodDense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering
Karpukhin, V., Oguz, B., Min, S., Lewis, P., Wu, L., Edunov, S., Chen, D., & Yih, W.-T. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.550 · Cited by 3,575 · cited 2×
“Each training data point consists of one positive sample and five negative samples, and the encoder undergoes training using contrastive loss throughout this process [ Karpukhin et al. , 2020 ] .”
Method
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [107]107. N. Anderson, C. Wilson, and S. D. Richardson, "Lingua: Addressing scenarios for live interpretation and automatic dubbing," in Proceedings of the 15th Biennial Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (Volume 2: Users and Providers Track and Government Track), J. Campbell, S. Larocca, J. Marciano, K. Savenkov, and A. Yanishevsky, Eds. Orlando, USA: Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, Sep. 2022, pp. 202-209. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/2022.amta-upg.14
- [134]134. T. Möller, A. Reina, R. Jayakumar, and M. Pietsch, "Covid-qa: A question answering dataset for covid-19," in ACL 2020 Workshop on Natural Language Processing for COVID-19 (NLP-COVID), 2020.
- [177]177. P. Xu, W. Ping, X. Wu, L. McAfee, C. Zhu, Z. Liu, S. Subramanian, E. Bakhturina, M. Shoeybi, and B. Catanzaro, "Retrieval meets long context large language models," arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03025, 2023. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey of Large Language Models
Zhao, W. X., Zhou, K., Li, J., Tang, T., Dong, Z., Hou, Y., Zhang, B., Min, Y., Zhang, J., Liu, P., et al. (2026) · Frontiers of Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s11704-026-60308-3 · Cited by 2,093
A Survey on RAG Meeting LLMs: Towards Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models
Fan, W., Ding, Y., Ning, L., Wang, S., Li, H., Yin, D., Chua, T.-S., & Li, Q. (2024) · Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3637528.3671470 · Cited by 827
Memory in the Age of AI Agents
Hu, Y., Liu, S., Yue, Y., Zhang, G., Liu, B., Zhu, F., Lin, J., Guo, H., Dou, S., Xi, Z., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.13564 · Cited by 389
Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models
Dahl, M., Magesh, V., Suzgun, M., & Ho, D. E. (2024) · Journal of Legal Analysis · doi:10.1093/jla/laae003 · Cited by 559
A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models
Mei, L., Yao, J., Ge, Y., Wang, Y., Bi, B., Cai, Y., Liu, J., Li, M., Li, Z.-Z., Zhang, D., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.13334 · Cited by 281
Benchmarking Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Medicine
Xiong, G., Jin, Q., Lu, Z., & Zhang, A. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024 · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.372 · Cited by 310
Arslan, M., Ghanem, H., Munawar, S., & Cruz, C. (2024) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2024.09.178 · Cited by 311
MM-LLMs: Recent Advances in MultiModal Large Language Models
Zhang, D., Yu, Y., Dong, J., Li, C., Su, D., Chu, C., & Yu, D. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024 · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.738 · Cited by 260
The Opportunities and Risks of Large Language Models in Mental Health
Lawrence, H. R., Schneider, R. A., Rubin, S. B., Matarić, M. J., McDuff, D. J., & Jones Bell, M. (2024) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/59479 · Cited by 235
“The LLM should reliably reach the conclusion that the client meets the criteria for major depressive disorder even if this diagnostic conclusion is communicated to the client using different phrasing.”
BackgroundGraph Retrieval-Augmented Generation: A Survey
Peng, B., Zhu, Y., Liu, Y., Bo, X., Shi, H., Hong, C., Zhang, Y., & Tang, S. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3777378 · Cited by 206
Liu, S., McCoy, A. B., & Wright, A. (2025) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocaf008 · Cited by 200
Hallucinations in LLMs: Understanding and Addressing Challenges
Perković, G., Drobnjak, A., & Botički, I. (2024) · International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics · doi:10.1109/mipro60963.2024.10569238 · Cited by 179
“This approach ensures a more informed and accurate output, mitigating reliance solely on training data [12].”
BackgroundFrom Matching to Generation: A Survey on Generative Information Retrieval
Li, X., Jin, J., Zhou, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, P., Zhu, Y., & Dou, Z. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3722552 · Cited by 172
AI–Human Hybrids for Marketing Research: Leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) as Collaborators
Arora, N., Chakraborty, I., & Nishimura, Y. (2024) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/00222429241276529 · Cited by 211
“RAG (Gao et al. 2023; Lewis et al. 2020) is used to improve the output quality of an LLM by incorporating information from an external knowledge source.”
Hallucination‐Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools
Magesh, V., Surani, F., Dahl, M., Suzgun, M., Manning, C. D., & Ho, D. E. (2025) · Journal of Empirical Legal Studies · doi:10.1111/jels.12413 · Cited by 182
Alkhalaf, M., Yu, P., Yin, M., & Deng, C. (2024) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2024.104662 · Cited by 156
From local to global: a graph rag approach to query-focused summarization
Edge, D., Trinh, H., Cheng, N., Bradley, J., Chao, A., Mody, A., Truitt, S., Metropolitansky, D., Ness, R. O., & Larson, J. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.16130 · Cited by 159
The Virtual Lab of AI agents designs new SARS-CoV-2 nanobodies
Swanson, K., Wu, W., Bulaong, N. L., Pak, J. E., & Zou, J. (2025) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09442-9 · Cited by 169
“However, these issues could be fixed by providing the agents with relevant information and documentation, for example through retrieval-augmented generation 46,47 or finetuning 48 (see Supplementary Note 5 for an exploration of finetuning agents).”
Large language models for reticular chemistry
Zheng, Z., Rampal, N., Inizan, T. J., Borgs, C., Chayes, J. T., & Yaghi, O. M. (2025) · Nature Reviews Materials · doi:10.1038/s41578-025-00772-8 · Cited by 134
“…contextual accuracy of LLM by integrating supplementary external information sources and is exemplified by retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) 54,55 , in which the LLM can access up-to-date reliable information and knowledge and generate more accurate answers, by retrieving data from relevant…”
Large Language Models for UAVs: Current State and Pathways to the Future
Javaid, S., Fahim, H., He, B., & Saeed, N. (2024) · IEEE Open Journal of Vehicular Technology · doi:10.1109/ojvt.2024.3446799 · Cited by 170
“For instance, [44]–[46] investigate LLMs architectures, [47]–[50] present the overview of the training process, fine-tuning, logical reasoning, and related challenges to address their limitations for broad adoption of LLM-based systems across domains.”
BackgroundA Survey on the Memory Mechanism of Large Language Model-based Agents
Zhang, Z., Dai, Q., Bo, X., Ma, C., Li, R., Chen, X., Zhu, J., Dong, Z., & Wen, J.-R. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3748302 · Cited by 592
Rethinking machine unlearning for large language models
Liu, S., Yao, Y., Jia, J., Casper, S., Baracaldo, N., Hase, P., Yao, Y., Liu, C. Y., Xu, X., Li, H., et al. (2025) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-025-00985-0 · Cited by 374
“Unlearning can be a natural solution for both types of attacks given the existing success of unlearning as a defense against adversarial attacks in other domains (Wang et al., 2019; Li et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2022b; Jia et al., 2023).”
InfluentialGuo, K., & Li, D. (2024) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2024.103362 · Cited by 140
Materials science in the era of large language models: a perspective
Lei, G., Docherty, R., & Cooper, S. J. (2024) · Digital Discovery · doi:10.1039/d4dd00074a · Cited by 130
“95 RAG has several bene ts to LLM work ows: 96 rstly, hallucinations are reduced as models only need to process existing information in a prompt rather than generate (or fabricate) it.”
Tool learning with large language models: a survey
Qu, C., Dai, S., Wei, X., Cai, H., Wang, S., Yin, D., Xu, J., & Wen, J.-R. (2025) · Frontiers of Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s11704-024-40678-2 · Cited by 266
“Meanwhile, we also acknowledge the foundational contributions of earlier perspective papers like those by Mialon et al. (2023) [45] and Qin et al. (2023) [16], which initially highlighted the promising opportunities that tools present to enhance LLMs capabilities.”
Reducing hallucination in structured outputs via Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Ayala, O., & Bechard, P. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 6: Industry Track) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-industry.19 · Cited by 97
“In the GenAI era, it refers to a process where relevant information from specific data sources is retrieved prior to generating text; the generation is then based on this retrieved information (Gao et al., 2024).”
BackgroundApplication of large language models in medicine
Liu, F., Zhou, H., Gu, B., Zou, X., Huang, J., Wu, J., Li, Y., Chen, S. S., Hua, Y., Zhou, P., et al. (2025) · Nature Reviews Bioengineering · doi:10.1038/s44222-025-00279-5 · Cited by 94
“RAG improves the performance of LLMs by integrating external knowledge into the generation process to minimize hallucinations, obscure reasoning processes and reliance on outdated information 51 .”
Huber, S. E., Kiili, K., Nebel, S., Ryan, R. M., Sailer, M., & Ninaus, M. (2024) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-024-09868-z · Cited by 85
“Ongoing developments of generative AI technology like retrieval augmented generation, improving on both factual reliability and timeliness of responses provided by LLMs (Gao et al., 2023), are likely to push the boundaries of what kind of expertise may be called essential even further.”
BackgroundXiao, T., & Xu, P. (2024) · Energy and Buildings · doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2024.114691 · Cited by 86
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) in Healthcare: A Comprehensive Review
Neha, F., Bhati, D., & Shukla, D. K. (2025) · AI · doi:10.3390/ai6090226 · Cited by 117
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)
Klesel, M., & Wittmann, H. F. (2025) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-025-00945-3 · Cited by 92
“For a more comprehensive overview of recent enhancements, we refer to in-depth reviews of RAG (Zhao et al. 2024; Yu et al. 2024; Gao et al. 2023).”
Yan, L., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Jin, Y., Echeverria, V., Milesi, M., Fan, J., Zhao, L., Alfredo, R., Li, X., & Gašević, D. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105322 · Cited by 85
Agentic Large Language Models, a Survey
Plaat, A., Van Duijn, M., Van Stein, N., Preuss, M., Van der Putten, P., & Batenburg, K. J. (2025) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.18675 · Cited by 75
Clinical entity augmented retrieval for clinical information extraction
López, I., Swaminathan, A., Vedula, K. S., Narayanan, S., Haredasht, F. N., Ma, S. P., Liang, A. S., Tate, S., Maddali, M. V., Gallo, R. J., et al. (2025) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01377-1 · Cited by 97
CacheBlend: Fast Large Language Model Serving for RAG with Cached Knowledge Fusion
Yao, J., Li, H., Liu, Y., Ray, S., Cheng, Y., Zhang, Q., Du, K., Lu, S., & Jiang, J. (2025) · Proceedings of the Twentieth European Conference on Computer Systems · doi:10.1145/3689031.3696098 · Cited by 75
Large Language Model based Multi-Agents: A Survey of Progress and Challenges
Guo, T., Chen, X., Wang, Y., Chang, R., Pei, S., Chawla, N. V., Wiest, O., & Zhang, X. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.01680 · Cited by 1,713
A comprehensive survey on integrating large language models with knowledge-based methods
Yang, W., Some, L., Bain, M., & Kang, B. H. (2025) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2025.113503 · Cited by 108
Leveraging LLMs for the Quality Assurance of Software Requirements
Lubos, S., Felfernig, A., Tran, T. N. T., Garber, D., Mansi, M. E., Erdeniz, S. P., & Le, V.-M. (2024) · IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE) · doi:10.1109/re59067.2024.00046 · Cited by 83
“For this, we consider the application of Retrieval Augmented Generation [27], [28] for complex and huge projects as a promising approach for future research.”
MethodRULE: Reliable Multimodal RAG for Factuality in Medical Vision Language Models
Xia, P., Zhu, K., Li, H., Zhu, H., Li, Y., Li, G., Zhang, L., & Yao, H. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.62 · Cited by 67
Introduction to large language models (LLMs) for dementia care and research
Treder, M. S., Lee, S., & Tsvetanov, K. A. (2024) · Frontiers in Dementia · doi:10.3389/frdem.2024.1385303 · Cited by 63
“Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) enhances the capabilities of large language models by integrating external information retrieval into the response generation process (Chen et al., 2024; Gao et al., 2024).”
BackgroundAIGC-empowered smart manufacturing: Prospects and challenges
Leng, J., Zheng, K., Li, R. C., Chen, C., Wang, B., Liu, Q., Chen, X., & Shen, W. (2025) · Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing · doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2025.103076 · Cited by 74
A review of LLMs and their applications in the architecture, engineering and construction industry
Kampelopoulos, D., Tsanousa, A., Vrochidis, S., & Kompatsiaris, I. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-025-11241-7 · Cited by 69
Knowledge graph enhanced retrieval-augmented generation for failure mode and effects analysis
Bahr, L., Wehner, C., Wewerka, J., Bittencourt, J., Schmid, U., & Daub, R. (2025) · Journal of Industrial Information Integration · doi:10.1016/j.jii.2025.100807 · Cited by 92
Kim, S. S. Y., Vaughan, J. W., Liao, Q. V., Lombrozo, T., & Russakovsky, O. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3714020 · Cited by 58
“Currently there is active research on techniques such as Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) [38, 72] to help LLMs provide more accurate information and sources.”
The Virtual Lab: AI Agents Design New SARS-CoV-2 Nanobodies with Experimental Validation
Swanson, K., Wu, W., Bulaong, N. L., Pak, J. E., & Zou, J. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.11.11.623004 · Cited by 56
LLM-generated Explanations for Recommender Systems
Lubos, S., Tran, T. N. T., Felfernig, A., Erdeniz, S. P., & Le, V.-M. (2024) · ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) · doi:10.1145/3631700.3665185 · Cited by 70
Generative artificial intelligence in graduate medical education
Janumpally, R., Nanua, S., Ngo, A., & Youens, K. E. (2025) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2024.1525604 · Cited by 69
Jeon, J., Sim, Y., Lee, H., Han, C., Yun, D., Kim, E., Nagendra, S. L., Jun, M. B., Kim, Y. ‐., Lee, J., et al. (2025) · Journal of Manufacturing Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2025.01.018 · Cited by 73
From Intention To Implementation: Automating Biomedical Research via LLMs
Luo, Y., Shi, L., Li, Y., Zhuang, A., Gong, Y., Liu, L., & Lin, C. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.09429 · Cited by 53
Harnessing large vision and language models in agriculture: a review
Zhu, H., Qin, S., Su, M., Lin, C., Li, A., & Gao, J. (2025) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2025.1579355 · Cited by 97
“…context then “ augments ” the model ’ s input, enabling it to generate responses that are not only more accurate and timelier but also grounded in veri fi able sources, thereby signi fi cantly mitigating the risks of data lag and factual inaccuracies in the agricultural domain (Gao et al., 2023).”
Technological folie à deux: feedback loops between AI chatbots and mental health
Dohnány, S., Kurth-Nelson, Z., Spens, E., Luettgau, L., Reid, A., Gabriel, I., Summerfield, C., Shanahan, M., & Nour, M. M. (2026) · Nature Mental Health · doi:10.1038/s44220-026-00595-8 · Cited by 51
From intention to implementation: automating biomedical research via LLMs
Luo, Y., Shi, L., Li, Y., Zhuang, A., Gong, Y., Liu, L., & Chen, L. (2025) · Science China Information Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11432-024-4485-0 · Cited by 67
Yang, Z., Tian, T., Kong, J., & Chen, H. (2025) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.4c06677 · Cited by 46
Li, G., Zhou, X., & Zhao, X. (2024) · Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment · doi:10.14778/3685800.3685838 · Cited by 60
A unified industrial large knowledge model framework in Industry 4.0 and smart manufacturing
Lee, J., & Su, H. (2024) · International Journal of AI for Materials and Design · doi:10.36922/ijamd.3681 · Cited by 64
“These structured instructions, vital for finetuning the LLM and retrieving domain knowledge, ensure that the model is proficient in addressing domain-specific challenges and enhancing problem-solving capabilities [25, 5].”
BackgroundVerlingue, L., Boyer, C., Olgiati, L., Brutti-Mairesse, C., Morel, D., & Blay, J. (2024) · The Lancet Regional Health - Europe · doi:10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.101064 · Cited by 50
“3,6 Recent efforts explore avenues for improved ef fi ciency and broader data analysis capabilities, including integration with other data formats like images.”
BackgroundA Survey of Conversational Search
Mo, F., Mao, K., Zhao, Z., Qian, H., Chen, H., Cheng, Y., Li, X., Zhu, Y., Dou, Z., & Nie, J. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3759453 · Cited by 130
“…usually served as external knowledge, and the generator model, usually the LLMs in existing studies, processes them with two key methodologies [259]: context curation [260–263] and generator fine-tuning [264, 265], which try to adapt the consistency between IR and RAG [167, 266, 267] and…”
Language agents achieve superhuman synthesis of scientific knowledge
Skarlinski, M. D., Cox, S., Laurent, J. M., Braza, J. D., Hinks, M., Hammerling, M. J., Ponnapati, M., Rodriques, S. G., & White, A. D. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.13740 · Cited by 49
“Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to assist scientists with retrieving, synthesizing, and summarizing the literature 1,2,3 , but still have several limitations for use in research tasks.”
BackgroundVidivelli, S., Manikandan, R., & Dharunbalaji, A. (2024) · Computers, materials & continua/Computers, materials & continua (Print) · doi:10.32604/cmc.2024.054360 · Cited by 54
Generative AI as a tool to accelerate the field of ecology
Rafiq, K., Beery, S., Palmer, M. S., Harchaoui, Z., & Abrahms, B. L. (2025) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-024-02623-1 · Cited by 49
“…generation, a technique for improving the ability of large language models to retrieve information from specific sources, offer promise Progress https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02623-1 in allowing researchers to more efficiently query and extract ecological data from written datasets 52,53 .”
InfluentialIndustrial Foundation Models (IFMs) for intelligent manufacturing: A systematic review
Zhao, S., Liu, S., Jiang, Y., Zhao, B. M., Lv, Y., Zhang, J., Wang, L., & Zhong, R. Y. (2025) · Journal of Manufacturing Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2025.06.011 · Cited by 50
Transparency of medical artificial intelligence systems
Kim, C., Gadgil, S. U., & Lee, S. (2025) · Nature Reviews Bioengineering · doi:10.1038/s44222-025-00363-w · Cited by 60
“These limitations can be addressed by retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) 196,197 .”
InfluentialXu, S., Yan, Z., Dai, C., & Wu, F. (2025) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1635381 · Cited by 56
“Knowledge distillation with soft labels during supervised fine-tuning has also been shown to improve factual grounding while maintaining general NLP performance (21–23).”
AI Agents in Clinical Medicine: A Systematic ReviewPreprint
Gorenshtein, A., Omar, M., Glicksberg, B. S., Nadkarni, G. N., & Klang, E. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.08.22.25334232 · Cited by 65
“24,30,56,57 The Microsoft MAI-DxO framework achieved 85.5% diagnostic accuracy while reducing costs by 69% compared to baseline models (from $7,850 to $2,397 for comparable accuracy).”
InfluentialAlier, M., Pereira, J., García‐Peñalvo, F. J., Guerrero, M. J. C., & Cabré, J. (2024) · Computer Standards & Interfaces · doi:10.1016/j.csi.2024.103940 · Cited by 89
Large language models in urban planning
Fu, X., Li, C., Quan, S. J., Yiğitcanlar, T., & Wasserman, D. (2025) · Nature Cities · doi:10.1038/s44284-025-00261-7 · Cited by 43
“Although existing LLM systems have demonstrated efficiency in processing and extracting lengthy, complex and unstructured text data, they generally struggle with long-context understanding 53 and precise, factual information retrieval and generation 54 .”
LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods
Li, H., Dong, Q., Chen, J., Su, H., Zhou, Y., Ai, Q., Ye, Z., & Liu, Y. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.05579 · Cited by 40
Jeon, K., & Lee, G. (2025) · Advanced Engineering Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.aei.2024.103076 · Cited by 43
Enhancing Legal Compliance and Regulation Analysis with Large Language Models
Hassani, S. (2024) · IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE) · doi:10.1109/re59067.2024.00065 · Cited by 49
“In addition, and time permitting, I plan to examine techniques like Retrieval Augmented Generation [44] to facilitate question answering over domains such as DPAs and Privacy Policies.”
MethodWeb Application for Retrieval-Augmented Generation: Implementation and Testing
Radeva, I., Popchev, I. P., Doukovska, L., & Dimitrova, M. (2024) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics13071361 · Cited by 52
Wu, J., Wu, X., Qiu, Z., Li, M., Lin, S., Zhang, Y., Zheng, Y., Yuan, C., & Yang, J. (2024) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocae079 · Cited by 41
Hybrid Retrieval-Augmented Generation Approach for LLMs Query Response Enhancement
Omrani, P., Hosseini, A., Hooshanfar, K., Ebrahimian, Z., Toosi, R., & Akhaee, M. A. (2024) · International Conference on Web Research (ICWR) · doi:10.1109/icwr61162.2024.10533345 · Cited by 48
“This assessment leverages the LLM’s ability to determine if R is consistent with the information contained within C , utilizing predefined evaluation ( T eval ) and refinement ( T refine ) templates [18].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGenerating Test Scenarios from NL Requirements Using Retrieval-Augmented LLMs: An Industrial Study
Arora, C., Herda, T., & Homm, V. (2024) · IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE) · doi:10.1109/re59067.2024.00031 · Cited by 65
“For addressing this, we leverage Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) [14] to enhance LLMs. RAG integrates external data retrieval into the text generation process of LLMs, enhancing their ability to generate accurate and relevant responses [15].”
MethodMitigating privacy risks in Retrieval-Augmented Generation via locally private entity perturbation
He, L., Tang, P., Zhang, Y., Zhou, P., & Su, S. (2025) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2025.104150 · Cited by 49
Business insights using RAG–LLMs: a review and case study
Arslan, M., Munawar, S., & Cruz, C. (2024) · Journal of Decision System · doi:10.1080/12460125.2024.2410040 · Cited by 52
Advancing Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Inverted Question Matching for Enhanced QA Performance
Saha, B., Saha, U., & Malik, M. Z. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3513155 · Cited by 60
Generative AI: driving productivity and scientific breakthroughs in pharmaceutical R&D
Doron, G., Genway, S., Roberts, M., & Jasti, S. (2024) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2024.104272 · Cited by 39
McDonald, D., Papadopoulos, R., & Benningfield, L. (2024) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.171665607.76504195/v1 · Cited by 34
From RAGs to riches: utilizing large language models to write documents for clinical trials
Markey, N., El-Mansouri, I., Rensonnet, G., van Langen, C., & Meier, C. (2025) · Clinical Trials · doi:10.1177/17407745251320806 · Cited by 33
Failure Management Overview in Optical Networks
Cruzes, S. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3498704 · Cited by 41
A comprehensive overview of Generative AI (GAI): Technologies, applications, and challenges
Zhang, Z., Zhang, J., Zhang, X., & Mai, W. (2025) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.129645 · Cited by 45
A LLM-informed multi-agent AI system for drone-based visual inspection for infrastructure
Liu, J., Li, H., Chai, C., Chen, K., & Wang, D. (2025) · Advanced Engineering Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.aei.2025.103643 · Cited by 32
Kenthapadi, K., Sameki, M., & Taly, A. (2024) · Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3637528.3671467 · Cited by 36
Zhao, Q., Wang, R., Cen, Y., Zha, D., Tan, S., Dong, Y., & Tang, J. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.1259 · Cited by 32
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and LLM Integration
Tural, B., Örpek, Z., & Destan, Z. (2024) · International Symposium on Innovative Approaches in Smart Technologies (ISAS) · doi:10.1109/isas64331.2024.10845308 · Cited by 43
Shahin, M. H., Goswami, S., Lobentanzer, S., & Corrigan, B. (2025) · Clinical and Translational Science · doi:10.1111/cts.70188 · Cited by 41
Guo, P., Xue, H., Ma, J., & Cheng, J. C. P. (2025) · Automation in Construction · doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2025.106374 · Cited by 31
Language models for materials discovery and sustainability: Progress, challenges, and opportunities
Pei, Z., Yin, J., & Zhang, J. (2025) · Progress in Materials Science · doi:10.1016/j.pmatsci.2025.101495 · Cited by 30
VistaRAG: Toward Safe and Trustworthy Autonomous Driving Through Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Dai, X., Guo, C., Tang, Y., Li, H., Wang, Y., Huang, J., Tian, Y., Xia, X., Lv, Y., & Wang, F. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles · doi:10.1109/tiv.2024.3396450 · Cited by 31
“Additionally,newRAGparadigms, suchaspost-retrievalandmodularRAG,couldpotentiallyen-hancetheperformanceofVistaRAGinthefuture[11].”
BackgroundMethodKirchenbauer, J., & Barns, C. (2024) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/pv7r5 · Cited by 31
Yazaki, M., Maki, S., Furuya, T., Inoue, K., Nagai, K., Nagashima, Y., Maruyama, J., Toki, Y., Kitagawa, K., Iwata, S., et al. (2025) · Prehospital Emergency Care · doi:10.1080/10903127.2024.2374400 · Cited by 29
“This technology enables the generation of high-accuracy, relevant responses even for questions requiring specialized knowledge (11,12).”
Education in the era of Neurosymbolic AI
Jaldi, C. D., Ilkou, E., Schroeder, N. L., & Shimizu, C. (2024) · Journal of Web Semantics · doi:10.1016/j.websem.2024.100857 · Cited by 36
“Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) [37] further optimizes this integration by combining the generative abilities of LLMs [17] with the precision of KGs.”
Wellawatte, G. P., & Schwaller, P. (2025) · Communications Chemistry · doi:10.1038/s42004-024-01393-y · Cited by 64
“We would like to highlight that XpertAI ’ s performance is limited by (a) the surrogate model ’ s fi t, (b) feature descriptions, and (c) the RAG model ’ s performance (literature retrieval and augmented text generation).”
InfluentialAgentic Systems: A Guide to Transforming Industries with Vertical AI Agents
Bousetouane, F. (2025) · doi:10.32388/2dkdck · Cited by 29
How do judges use large language models? Evidence from Shenzhen
Liu, J. Z., & Li, X. (2024) · The Journal of Legal Analysis · doi:10.1093/jla/laae009 · Cited by 40
Vizniuk, A., Diachenko, G., Laktionov, І., Siwocha, A., Xiao, M., & Smoląg, J. (2025) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing Research · doi:10.2478/jaiscr-2025-0007 · Cited by 36
Wang, Z., Liu, Z., Lu, J. W. Z., & Lu, J. H. (2025) · Journal of Building Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2025.112189 · Cited by 33
A-Mem: Agentic Memory for LLM Agents
Xu, W., Liang, Z., Mei, K., Gao, H., Tan, J., & Zhang, Y. (2025) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38 · doi:10.52202/085713-0593 · Cited by 51
Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agents
Yehudai, A., Eden, L., Li, A., Uziel, G., Zhao, Y., Bar-Haim, R., Cohan, A., & Shmueli-Scheuer, M. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.16416 · Cited by 26
Machine Learning With Computer Networks: Techniques, Datasets, and Models
Afifi, H., Pochaba, S., Boltres, A., Laniewski, D., Haberer, J., Paeleke, L., Poorzare, R., Stolpmann, D., Wehner, N., Redder, A., et al. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3384460 · Cited by 36
“Additionally, and closely related, GenAI can be used with retrieval-augemented generation (RAG) [103] to automate collecting information from the network, analyze it, and push new configuration if necessary [104], [105], [106].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Gao, Y., Xiong, Y., Gao, X., Jia, K., Pan, J., Bi, Y., Dai, Y., Sun, J., Wang, M., & Wang, H.
- Affiliations
- Tongji University (CN)
- Fudan University (CN)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2312.10997
- OpenAlex
- W4389984066
- Cited by
- 876
- References
- 227
- Citations by year
- 2026: 190 · 2025: 416 · 2024: 270
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- 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
- retrieval-augmented generation, large language models, hallucinations, external knowledge retrieval, knowledge updating, external databases
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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