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Large Language Models (LLMs) showcase impressive capabilities but encounter challenges like hallucination, outdated knowledge, and non-transparent, untraceable reasoning processes.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
Items 101–200 of 832
Kraft, A., & Soulier, E. (2024) · The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3630106.3658981 · Cited by 25
Shi, D., Li, J., Meyer, O., & Bauernhansl, T. (2025) · Computers in Industry · doi:10.1016/j.compind.2025.104330 · Cited by 30
Technological folie à deux: Feedback Loops Between AI Chatbots and Mental Illness
Dohnány, S., Kurth-Nelson, Z., Spens, E., Luettgau, L., Reid, A., Gabriel, I., Summerfield, C., Shanahan, M., & Nour, M. M. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.19218 · Cited by 26
“Sophisticated retrieval modules might plausibly incorporate neural network layers trained using human preferences, thus affording a novel means by which chatbot behaviour can encode human cognitive biases (e.g., biased memory recall) 66,67 .”
DeepResearcher: Scaling Deep Research via Reinforcement Learning in Real-world Environments
Zheng, Y., Fu, D., Hu, X., Cai, X., Ye, L., Lu, P., & Liu, P. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.03160 · Cited by 25
RAGVA: Engineering retrieval augmented generation-based virtual assistants in practice
Yang, R., Fu, M. C., Tantithamthavorn, C. K., Arora, C., Vandenhurk, L., & Chua, J. (2025) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2025.112436 · Cited by 41
Shi, F., Chen, L., Zhou, M., Zhao, Y., & Zheng, Y. (2025) · Advanced Engineering Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.aei.2025.103523 · Cited by 29
Benchmarking Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Medicine
Xiong, G., Jin, Q., Lu, Z., & Zhang, A. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.13178 · Cited by 312
Liu, J., Ma, X., Wang, L., & Pei, L. (2024) · Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage · doi:10.1145/3690391 · Cited by 27
A survey of table reasoning with large language models
Zhang, X., Wang, D., Dou, L., Zhu, Q., & Che, W. (2025) · Frontiers of Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s11704-024-40330-z · Cited by 46
“Retrieval-Augmented Generation: Injecting Knowledge Related to the Entity Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) technology denotes retrieving the reasoning-related information from a large number of documents before reasoning [ Gao et al. , 2024 ] .”
Knowledge assimilation: Implementing knowledge-guided agricultural large language model
Jiang, J., Yan, L., Liu, H., Xia, Z., Wang, H., Yang, Y., & Guan, Y. (2025) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2025.113197 · Cited by 31
Self-citationJoffe, I., Felobes, G., Elgouhari, Y., Talebi-Kalaleh, M., Mei, Q., & Chui, Y. H. (2025) · Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering · doi:10.1061/jccee5.cpeng-6037 · Cited by 27
AgentNet: Decentralized Evolutionary Coordination for LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems
Yang, Y., Chai, H., Shao, S., Song, Y., Qi, S., Rui, R., & Zhang, W. (2025) · neural information processing systems · doi:10.52202/085713-3578 · Cited by 118
PROV-AGENT: Unified Provenance for Tracking AI Agent Interactions in Agentic Workflows
de Souza, R. P., Gueroudji, A., DeWitt, S. J., Rosendo, D., Ghosal, T., Ross, R. B., Balaprakash, P., & da Silva, R. F. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on eScience · doi:10.1109/escience65000.2025.00093 · Cited by 26
“MCP defines core agentic AI development concepts, including tools, prompts, resources, context management, and agent–client architecture that can communicate with external sources, such as knowledge bases or web pages, for Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) [15] to dynamically augment prompts.”
Liang, J., Su, G., Lin, H., Wu, Y., Zhao, R., & Li, Z. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.10408 · Cited by 23
OpenECAD: An efficient visual language model for editable 3D-CAD design
Yuan, Z., Shi, J., & Huang, Y. (2024) · Computers & Graphics · doi:10.1016/j.cag.2024.104048 · Cited by 40
“Additionally, implementing Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) [42] and prompting techniques can further enhance the model’s contextual understanding and code generation capabilities.”
MethodWhat Makes Multimodal In-Context Learning Work?
Baldassini, F. B., Shukor, M., Cord, M., Soulier, L., & Piwowarski, B. (2024) · IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) · doi:10.1109/cvprw63382.2024.00161 · Cited by 35
Genovese, A., Prabha, S., Borna, S., Gomez-Cabello, C. A., Haider, S. A., Trabilsy, M., Tao, C., Aziz, K. T., Murray, P. M., & Forte, A. J. (2025) · Aesthetic Surgery Journal · doi:10.1093/asj/sjaf038 · Cited by 25
Zhang, L., Yao, Z., & Moghaddam, A. H. (2025) · Journal of Teacher Education · doi:10.1177/00224871251325109 · Cited by 28
“In addition, we apply prompt-engineering techniques, such as Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), which instructs LLM agents to retrieve information from external databases, to further enhance LLM capabilities to produce contextually relevant content or ideas (Gao et al., 2023).”
RTLRewriter: Methodologies for Large Models aided RTL Code Optimization
Yao, X., Wang, Y., Li, X., Lian, Y., Chen, R., Chen, L., Yuan, M., Xu, H. L., & Yu, B. (2024) · doi:10.1145/3676536.3676775 · Cited by 26
Chen, X., Liu, Y., Han, W., Zheng, X., Wang, S., Wang, J., & Wang, L. (2025) · ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2025.04.015 · Cited by 28
DR-RAG: Domain-Rule-based Retrieval-Augmented Generation for aviation digital model design
Xiong, X., Cai, H., Han, Y., Shen, B., & Hu, P. (2025) · Advanced Engineering Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.aei.2025.103688 · Cited by 29
Labeling-free RAG-enhanced LLM for intelligent fault diagnosis via reinforcement learning
Xu, J., Xu, Z., Jiang, Z., Chen, Z., Luo, H., Wang, Y., & Gui, W. (2025) · Advanced Engineering Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.aei.2025.103864 · Cited by 27
Large Language Models Help Humans Verify Truthfulness – Except When They Are Convincingly Wrong
Si, C., Goyal, N., Wu, T., Zhao, C., Feng, S., Daumé Iii, H., & Boyd-Graber, J. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.81 · Cited by 26
Zhou, S., Liu, X., Li, D., Gu, T., Liu, K., Yang, Y., & Wong, M. O. (2025) · Automation in Construction · doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2025.106206 · Cited by 25
Muccione, V., Vaghefi, S. A., Bingler, J., Allen, S., Kraus, M., Gostlow, G., Wekhof, T., Senni, C. C., Stammbach, D., Ni, J., et al. (2024) · Regional Environmental Change · doi:10.1007/s10113-024-02283-8 · Cited by 23
Cheng, A., Ser, C. T., Skreta, M., Guzmán-Cordero, A., Thiede, L., Burger, A., Aldossary, A., Leong, S. X., Pablo‐García, S., Strieth‐Kalthoff, F., et al. (2024) · Faraday Discussions · doi:10.1039/d4fd00153b · Cited by 22
Abroms, L. C., Yousefi, A., Wysota, C. N., Wu, T.-C., & Broniatowski, D. A. (2024) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/66896 · Cited by 25
“LLM chatbots, such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, and Meta’s Llama, now allow for open-text queries and provide dynamic, tailored natural language responses that are responsive to context or nuance [4-8].”
Arakawa, R., Lehman, J. F., & Goel, M. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies · doi:10.1145/3699759 · Cited by 22
Equipping Llama with Google Query API for Improved Accuracy and Reduced HallucinationPreprint
Bae, Y. S., Kim, H. R., & Kim, J. H. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4014474/v1 · Cited by 19
LLM-Powered AI Agent Systems and Their Applications in Industry
Liang, G., & Tong, Q. (2025) · IEEE World AI IoT Congress (AIIoT) · doi:10.1109/aiiot65859.2025.11105299 · Cited by 49
“Integrating external knowledge bases, obtained by Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) [52] and external tools [50], [104], to cross-check facts can also reduce misinformation risks.”
Nanua, S., Steward, R., Neely, B., Datto, M., & Youens, K. E. (2025) · Journal of Pathology Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jpi.2025.100520 · Cited by 23
Automatic High-Level Test Case Generation using Large Language Models
Hasan, N. B., Islam, M. A., Khan, J. Y., Senjik, S., & Iqbal, A. (2025) · International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) · doi:10.1109/msr66628.2025.00105 · Cited by 21
“2) Impact of Using RAG: Studies find that relevant examples given in the prompt can improve LLM performance [16], [24].”
盖振华, Tong, L., & Ge, Q. (2024) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/ctw8v · Cited by 19
Zimmermann, Y., Bazgir, A., Al‐Feghali, A., Ansari, M., Bocarsly, J. D., Brinson, L. C., Chiang, Y., Çırcı, D., Chiu, M., Daelman, N., et al. (2025) · Machine Learning Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ae011a · Cited by 50
Automating quantum computing laboratory experiments with an agent-based AI framework
Cao, S., Zhang, Z., Alghadeer, M., Fasciati, S. D., Piscitelli, M., Bakr, M. S., Leek, P., & Aspuru‐Guzik, A. (2025) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2025.101372 · Cited by 55
Adversarial prompt and fine-tuning attacks threaten medical large language models
Yang, Y., Jin, Q., Huang, F., & Lu, Z. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-64062-1 · Cited by 38
“Enhancing LLMs with external tools and prompt engineering has yielded promising results, especially in these professional domains 4,11 .”
Exploring Retrieval Augmented Generation in Arabic
El-Beltagy, S. R., & Abdallah, M. A. (2024) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2024.10.203 · Cited by 24
Yu, S., Androsov, A., & Yan, H. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105307 · Cited by 22
A framework for considering the use of generative AI for health
Hunt, I. D. V., Jin, K.-X., & Linos, E. (2025) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01695-y · Cited by 23
“Generation 20 (constraining a model ’ s outputs to speci fi c documents) can allow models to provide more domain-speci fi c responses and reduce errors.”
Adjust to reality: LLM-driven test-time semantic adjustment for zero-shot fault diagnosis
Zhao, J., Yue, J., Zhao, C., & Chen, C. (2025) · Control Engineering Practice · doi:10.1016/j.conengprac.2025.106406 · Cited by 21
Aligning generalization between humans and machines
Ilievski, F., Hammer, B., van Harmelen, F., Paaßen, B., Saralajew, S., Schmid, U., Biehl, M. L., Bolognesi, M., Dong, X., Gashteovski, K., et al. (2025) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-025-01109-4 · Cited by 37
“Instance-based methods closely resemble concepts in cognitive linguistics, such as a graded degree of belonging to a category, which can be represented by a prototype 58 .”
What We Talk About When We Talk About K-12 Computing Education
Schulte, C., Sentance, S., Sparmann, S., Altın, R., Friebroon‐Yesharim, M., Landman, M., Rücker, M. T., Satavlekar, S., Siegel, A. A., Tedre, M., et al. (2025) · ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE) · doi:10.1145/3689187.3709612 · Cited by 28
“The answer is, therefore, based on the context retrieved from the documents, which, in general, yields more precise outcomes and reduces the occurrence of hallucinations [36].”
Integrating Ontologies and Large Language Models to Implement Retrieval Augmented Generation
DeBellis, M., Dutta, N., Gino, J., & Balaji, A. (2024) · Applied Ontology · doi:10.1177/15705838241296446 · Cited by 23
“Examples include documents for customer support and legal documents (Gao et al., 2023).”
InfluentialPolaris: A Safety-focused LLM Constellation Architecture for Healthcare
Mukherjee, S., Gamble, P., Ausin, M. S., Kant, N., Aggarwal, K., Manjunath, N., Datta, D., Liu, Z., Ding, J., Busacca, S., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.13313 · Cited by 17
Enhancing RAG Performance Through Chunking and Text Splitting Techniques
Kshirsagar, A. (2024) · International Journal of Scientific Research in Computer Science Engineering and Information Technology · doi:10.32628/cseit2410593 · Cited by 19
A large language model framework for literature-based disease–gene association prediction
Li, P.-H., Sun, Y.-Y., Juan, H., Chen, C., Tsai, H., & Huang, J. (2024) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbaf070 · Cited by 26
“To mitigate these concerns, researchers have applied Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) in LLM-based chatbots [27, 28].”
Merola, C., & Singh, J. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-02899-0_1 · Cited by 23
Bianchini, F., Calamo, M., Luzi, F. D., Macrì, M., & Mecella, M. (2024) · Lecture notes in business information processing · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-61003-5_13 · Cited by 19
Hou, S., Zhao, A., Liang, J., Shen, Z., & Wu, H. (2025) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2025.113624 · Cited by 25
Tsai, H.-C., Huang, Y.-F., & Kuo, C.-W. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4022248/v1 · Cited by 21
Płonka, M., Kocot, K., Hołda, K., Daniec, K., & Nawrat, A. (2025) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.126711 · Cited by 23
Sun, S., Zhang, K., Li, J., Yu, M., Hou, K., Wang, Y., & Cheng, X. (2025) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2025.104147 · Cited by 20
Zhang, M., Fang, Z., Wang, T., Lu, S., Wang, X., & Shi, T. (2025) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.127717 · Cited by 23
Ontology matching with Large Language Models and prioritized depth-first search
Taboada, M., Martinez, D., Arideh, M., & Mosquera, R. (2025) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103254 · Cited by 38
Niel, O., Dookhun, D., & Caliment, A. (2025) · Pediatric Nephrology · doi:10.1007/s00467-025-06819-w · Cited by 16
“The training method was of the retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) type [29].”
Generative Agent-Based Modeling with Large Language Models for insider threat detection
Ferraro, A., Orlando, G. M., & Russo, D. (2025) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2025.111343 · Cited by 17
Enhancing Programming Education with Open-Source Generative AI Chatbots
Šarčević, A., Tomičić, I., Merlin, A., & Horvat, M. (2024) · International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics · doi:10.1109/mipro60963.2024.10569736 · Cited by 26
“This comprehensive approach allows for continuous knowledge updates and facilitates the integration of domain-specific information [6].”
BackgroundEnhancing Contextual Understanding of Mistral LLM with External Knowledge BasesPreprint
Sasaki, M., Watanabe, N., & Komanaka, T. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4215447/v1 · Cited by 17
Retrieval Augmented Generation for Large Language Models in Healthcare: A Systematic ReviewPreprint
Amugongo, L. M., Mascheroni, P., Brooks, S. G., Doering, S., & Seidel, J. (2024) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202407.0876.v1 · Cited by 15
Seki, T., Kawazoe, Y., Ito, H., Akagi, Y., Takiguchi, T., & Ohe, K. (2025) · Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2025.1458289 · Cited by 18
“Concurrently, there are ongoing efforts to determine how to effectively leverage pre-trained vision language models in medical contexts without requiring domain-speci fi c specialization (18).”
Kang, R., Xuan, Z., Tong, L., Wang, Y., Jin, S., & Xiao, Q. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/65523 · Cited by 19
“…of nursing research GenAI through techniques such as supervised fine-tuning [39], knowledge graph [40], and retrieval-augmented generation [41], reducing the occurrence of “AI hallucinations,” enhancing its timeliness, interpretability, and developing a multimodal GenAI that meets the…”
Code Summarization Beyond Function Level
Makharev, V., & Ivanov, V. V. (2025) · International Workshop on Large Language Models for Code (LLM4Code) · doi:10.1109/llm4code66737.2025.00024 · Cited by 25
“We hypothesize that this broader context would enrich source code, especially when combined with the utilization of Large Language Models (LLMs) and in-context learning techniques, such as Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) [3].”
LLMSecConfig: An LLM-Based Approach for Fixing Software Container Misconfigurations
Ye, Z., Le, T. H. M., & Babar, M. A. (2025) · IEEE/ACM International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) · doi:10.1109/msr66628.2025.00099 · Cited by 14
“The context retrieval module is a critical component of LLMSecConfig, where RAG, with its efficient retrieval capability, has the characteristics of knowledge augmentation and the performance of context-aware generation [30], which enables us to enhance the repair generation process.”
Securing RAG: A Risk Assessment and Mitigation Framework
Ammann, L., Ott, S., Landolt, C. R., & Lehmann, M. P. (2025) · IEEE Swiss Conference on Data Science (SDS) · doi:10.1109/sds66131.2025.00024 · Cited by 24
“RAG systems have introduced new challenges to the AI threat landscape.”
Kharitonova, K., Pérez‐Fernández, D., Gutiérrez-Hernando, J., Gutiérrez-Fandiño, A., Callejas, Z., & Griol, D. (2024) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2024.2321959 · Cited by 17
A comparative study of LLMs and NLP approaches for supporting business process analysis
Nicola, A. D., Formica, A., Mele, I., et al. (2024) · Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.1080/17517575.2024.2415578 · Cited by 14
Generative Information Retrieval Evaluation
Alaofi, M., Arabzadeh, N., Clarke, C. L. A., & Sanderson, M. (2024) · The information retrieval series · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-73147-1_6 · Cited by 34
“While we can view a GenIR system as a black box for evaluation purposes, a RAG architecture [35] often underlies a GenIR system.”
MethodCLAPnq : Cohesive Long-form Answers from Passages in Natural Questions for RAG systems
Rosenthal, S., Sil, A., Florian, R., & Roukos, S. (2025) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00729 · Cited by 29
Common pitfalls in evaluating model performance and strategies for avoidance in agricultural studies
Chen, C. J., White, R. R., & Wright, R. (2025) · Computers and Electronics in Agriculture · doi:10.1016/j.compag.2025.110126 · Cited by 17
Ismail, Kurnia, R., Widyatama, F., Wibawa, I. M., Brata, Z. A., Ukasyah, Nelistiani, G. A., & Kim, H. (2025) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s25030870 · Cited by 16
DyG-RAG: Dynamic Graph Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Event-Centric Reasoning
Sun, Q., Yuan, J., He, S., Guan, X., Yuan, H., Fu, X., Li, J., & Yu, P. S. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.13396 · Cited by 14
AI agents in chemical research: GVIM – an intelligent research assistant system
Ma, K. (2025) · Digital Discovery · doi:10.1039/d4dd00398e · Cited by 16
Understanding question-answering systems: Evolution, applications, trends, and challenges
Farea, A., & Emmert‐Streib, F. (2025) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2025.110997 · Cited by 18
Ho, C. M., Shaowei, G., Mok, P. K.-L., Lam, C. H., Ho, W. Y., Mak, C. H., Qin, J., Wong, A. K. C., & Hui, V. C. C. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/74299 · Cited by 15
“This retrieval step uses advanced semantic similarity calculation to identify the most pertinent documents or passages related to the user’s question [16].”
Rethinking chemical research in the age of large language models
MacKnight, R., Boiko, D. A., Regio, J. E., Gallegos, L. C., Neukomm, T. A., & Gomes, G. (2025) · Nature Computational Science · doi:10.1038/s43588-025-00811-y · Cited by 26
“Importantly, the outcomes of reasoning are dependent on not only the reasoning ability of a model but also the data that are accessible to a model 36 .”
Teaching UML using a RAG-based LLM
Ardimento, P., Bernardi, M., & Cimitile, M. (2024) · IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Network · doi:10.1109/ijcnn60899.2024.10651492 · Cited by 16
Document Knowledge Graph to Enhance Question Answering with Retrieval Augmented Generation
Knollmeyer, S., Akmal, M. U., Koval, L., Asif, S., Mathias, S. G., & Großmann, D. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA) · doi:10.1109/etfa61755.2024.10711054 · Cited by 16
“Nao et al. [2] provide a comprehensive overview of RAG in combination with LLMs, categorizing various approaches.”
BackgroundMethodBoying, S., Pashkova, L., Pieters, P. A., Panche, A. N., Mohite, O. S., Santos, A., Zielinski, D. C., Palsson, B. Ø., & Phaneuf, P. V. (2024) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkae1042 · Cited by 14
Nayinzira, J. P., & Adda, M. (2024) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2024.11.118 · Cited by 22
Design Principles for Exploratory Search Interfaces
Hoeber, O. (2025) · Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3698204.3716443 · Cited by 13
“The primary publication venue for novel search interface designs for complex search tasks over the last four years is CHIIR (13).”
InfluentialIs Semantic Chunking Worth the Computational Cost?Preprint
Qu, R., Bao, F. S., & Tu, R. (2024) · Qeios · doi:10.32388/m7ykdz · Cited by 16
TrustRAG: Enhancing Robustness and Trustworthiness in RAGPreprint
Zhou, H., Zhan, Z., Li, Z., Haddadi, H., & Yılmaz, E. (2025) · Qeios · doi:10.32388/z4dwhq · Cited by 16
LitLLM: A Toolkit for Scientific Literature Review
Agarwal, S., Sahu, G., Puri, A., Laradji, I. H., Dvijotham, K. D., Stanley, J., Charlin, L., & Pal, C. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.01788 · Cited by 13
Ludwig, H., Schmidt, T., & Kühn, M. (2025) · Computers in Industry · doi:10.1016/j.compind.2025.104289 · Cited by 15
Ong, A. Y., Merle, D. A., Wagner, S. K., & Keane, P. A. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/75666 · Cited by 12
“RAG systems may select the “optimal” information to retrieve through vector embeddings, ranking algorithms, leveraging metadata to select for data quality, or other techniques [1].”
Can LLMs be Trusted for Evaluating RAG Systems? A Survey of Methods and Datasets
Brehme, L., Ströhle, T., & Breu, R. (2025) · IEEE Swiss Conference on Data Science (SDS) · doi:10.1109/sds66131.2025.00010 · Cited by 21
“Since 2022, numerous RAG systems have demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach in overcoming some limitations of LLMs [1].”
InfluentialSha, H., Gong, F., Liu, B., Liu, R., Wang, H., & Wu, T. (2025) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/75279 · Cited by 14
“Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising strategy to mitigate these limitations by incorporating external knowledge into LLMs, thereby enhancing factual accuracy and reducing hallucinations [11].”
Self-citationJeon, S., Lee, S., Kim, E. H., Eun, J., Lee, K., Lim, H., & Lee, J. (2025) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/72553 · Cited by 27
“Advanced natural language processing and RAG models may enhance the chatbot’s ability to interpret user input and generate relevant responses [71,72].”
Overloaded minds and machines: a cognitive load framework for human-AI symbiosis
Wang, P., Liu, H., Zou, L., & PAAS, F. G. W. C. (2026) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-026-11510-z · Cited by 18
Jacobs, S., & Jaschke, S. (2024) · 2024 36th International Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T) · doi:10.1109/cseet62301.2024.10663001 · Cited by 13
“In naive RAG, the question is put into a vector representation as a query with the same embedding model for Question Answering, so that similarity scores between the query vector and the vectorized chunks within the indexed corpus can be computed [17].”
MethodOn the emergent capabilities of ChatGPT 4 to estimate personality traits
Piastra, M., & Catellani, P. (2025) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2025.1484260 · Cited by 15
“The use of RAG would introduce numerous relevant and variable factors (Gao et al., 2024) and thus significantly expand the scope of the study for systematic evaluation.”
A RAG-Based Institutional Assistant
Kuratomi, G., Pirozelli, P., Cozman, F. G., & Peres, S. M. (2024) · doi:10.5753/eniac.2024.245243 · Cited by 20
MERMaid: Universal multimodal mining of chemical reactions from PDFs using vision-language models
Leong, S. X., Pablo‐García, S., Wong, B., & Aspuru‐Guzik, A. (2025) · Matter · doi:10.1016/j.matt.2025.102331 · Cited by 24
Yager, K. G. (2024) · Digital Discovery · doi:10.1039/d4dd00178h · Cited by 12
Automatic biomarker discovery and enrichment with BRAD
Pickard, J., Prakash, R., Choi, M. A., Oliven, N., Stansbury, C., Cwycyshyn, J., Galioto, N., Gorodetsky, A., Velasquez, A., & Rajapakse, I. (2025) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btaf159 · Cited by 14
AgentClinic: a multimodal benchmark for tool-using clinical AI agents
Schmidgall, S., Ziaei, R., Harris, C., Kim, J. W., Reis, E. P., Jopling, J., & Moor, M. (2026) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-026-02674-7 · Cited by 344
Large Language Model Uncertainty Measurement and Calibration for Medical Diagnosis and Treatment
Savage, T., Wang, J., Gallo, R., Boukil, A., Patel, V., Ahmad Safavi-Naini, S. A., Soroush, A., & Chen, J. H. (2024) · doi:10.1101/2024.06.06.24308399 · Cited by 11
“8 A key challenge of modern LLM systems is selectively deploying RAG only when a model is uncertain of an answer, otherwise extra context provided by RAG can errantly lead the model into an incorrect response.”
BackgroundStructured knowledge-based causal discovery: Agentic streams of thought
Meier, S., Raut, P. N., Mahr, F., Thielen, N., Franke, J. E., & Risch, F. (2025) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2025.104202 · Cited by 14
Simulating Human Opinions with Large Language Models
Kaiser, C., Kaiser, J., Manewitsch, V., Rau, L., & Schallner, R. (2025) · ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) · doi:10.1145/3708319.3733685 · Cited by 12
Yuanyuan, Z., Bensahla, A., Bjelogrlic, M., Zaghir, J., Turbé, H., Bednarczyk, L., Gaudet-Blavignac, C., Ehrsam, J., Marchand‐Maillet, S., & Lovis, C. (2025) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01692-1 · Cited by 14
“Extensive validation across diverse populations and clinical settings is necessary to ensure the real-world applicability of SSRL models.”
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