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Large Language Models (LLMs) showcase impressive capabilities but encounter challenges like hallucination, outdated knowledge, and non-transparent, untraceable reasoning processes.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 ] .”
MethodThe probabilistic relevance framework: BM25 and beyond
Robertson, S., & Zaragoza, H. (2009) · Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1561/1500000019 · Cited by 3,374 · cited 1×
“The development of Advanced RAG and Modular RAG was a response to these specific shortcomings in Naive RAG.”
BackgroundTraining Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-2011 · Cited by 3,117 · cited 1×
“Specifically, RAG involves an initial retrieval step where the LLMs query an external data source to obtain relevant information before proceeding to answer questions or generate text.”
BackgroundRetrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks
Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., Küttler, H., Lewis, M., Yih, W.-T., Rocktäschel, T., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.11401 · Cited by 3,101 · cited 3×
“The paper utilizes two common paradigms for fine-tuning, namely Joint-Encoder and Dual-Encoder [Arora et al. , 2023, Wang et al. , 2022b, Lewis et al. , 2020, Xia et al. , 2019, Cai et al. , 2021, Cheng et al. , 2022].”
BackgroundMethodLlama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models
Touvron, H., Martin, L., Stone, K., Albert, P., Almahairi, A., Babaei, Y., Bashlykov, N., Batra, S., Bhargava, P., Bhosale, S., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.09288 · Cited by 2,604 · 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…”
BackgroundMS MARCO: A Human Generated MAchine Reading COmprehension Dataset
Bajaj, P., Campos, D., Craswell, N., Deng, L., Gao, J., Liu, X., Majumder, R., McNamara, A., Mitra, B., Nguyen, T., et al. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1611.09268 · Cited by 2,473
Natural Questions: A benchmark for question answering research
Kwiatkowski, T., Palomaki, J., Redfield, O., Collins, M., Parikh, A., Alberti, C., Epstein, D., Polosukhin, I., Devlin, J., Lee, K., et al. (2019) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00276 · Cited by 2,069 · cited 1×
“It seeks to provide a comprehensive overview and analysis of existing RAG technologies and offer conclusions and prospects for future development methods.”
BackgroundConstructing A Multi-hop QA Dataset for Comprehensive Evaluation of Reasoning StepsPreprint
Ho, X., Nguyen, A.-K. D., Sugawara, S., & Aizawa, A. (2020) · International Conference on Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2011.01060 · Cited by 1,909
He, R., & McAuley, J. (2016) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/2872427.2883037 · Cited by 1,848
Language Models as Knowledge Bases?
Petroni, F., Rocktäschel, T., Riedel, S., Lewis, P., Bakhtin, A., Wu, Y., & Miller, A. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1250 · Cited by 1,834 · cited 1×
“The recursive nature of the process allows for continuous learning and adaptation to the user’s requirements, often resulting in improved satisfaction with the search outcomes.”
BackgroundHotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering
Yang, Z., Qi, P., Zhang, S., Bengio, Y., Cohen, W., Salakhutdinov, R., & Manning, C. D. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1259 · Cited by 1,804
HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?Preprint
Zellers, R., Holtzman, A., Bisk, Y., Farhadi, A., & Choi, Y. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.07830 · Cited by 1,693
TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehension
Joshi, M., Choi, E., Weld, D., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2017) · Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-1147 · Cited by 1,690
TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehension
Joshi, M., Choi, E., Weld, D. S., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.03551 · Cited by 1,650
Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts
Liu, N. F., Lin, K., Hewitt, J., Paranjape, A., Bevilacqua, M., Petroni, F., & Liang, P. (2024) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00638 · Cited by 1,612 · cited 3×
“A notable issue, termed the “lost in the middle” phenomenon, arises when a single retrieval yields redundant content that may dilute or contradict essential information, thereby degrading the generation quality [ Liu et al. , 2023a ] .”
BackgroundLost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts
Liu, N. F., Lin, K., Hewitt, J., Paranjape, A., Bevilacqua, M., Petroni, F., & Liang, P. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.03172 · Cited by 1,599
Semantic Parsing on Freebase from Question-Answer Pairs
Berant, J., Chou, A., Frostig, R., & Liang, P. (2013) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d13-1160 · Cited by 1,593
ERNIE: Enhanced Language Representation with Informative Entities
Zhang, Z., Han, X., Liu, Z., Jiang, X., Sun, M., & Liu, Q. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1139 · Cited by 1,482 · cited 1×
“In a further stage of generator training, the model acknowledges the critical role of entity semantics in the representation learning of textual data for retrieval, as highlighted by [ Sciavolino et al. , 2021, Zhang et al. , 2019 ] .”
MethodSequence Level Training with Recurrent Neural Networks
Ranzato, M., Chopra, S., Auli, M., & Zaremba, W. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1511.06732 · Cited by 1,426 · cited 1×
“SKR [Wang et al. , 2023e] classifies questions as known or unknown, applying retrieval enhancement selectively.”
BackgroundFEVER: a Large-scale Dataset for Fact Extraction and VERification
Thorne, J., Vlachos, A., Christodoulopoulos, C., & Mittal, A. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-1074 · Cited by 1,343
Li, X., & Roth, D. (2002) · International Conference on Computational Linguistics · doi:10.3115/1072228.1072378 · Cited by 1,308
ColBERT: Efficient and Effective Passage Search via Contextualized Late Interaction over BERT
Khattab, O., & Zaharia, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3397271.3401075 · Cited by 1,301 · cited 1×
“The development of Advanced RAG and Modular RAG was a response to these specific shortcomings in Naive RAG.”
BackgroundNarayan, S., Cohen, S. B., & Lapata, M. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1206 · Cited by 1,207
Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools
Schick, T., Dwivedi-Yu, J., Dessì, R., Raileanu, R., Lomeli, M., Zettlemoyer, L., Cancedda, N., & Scialom, T. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.04761 · Cited by 1,150 · cited 1×
“These methods are part of a broader trend wherein LLMs employ active judgment in their operations, as seen in model agents like AutoGPT, Toolformer, and Graph-Toolformer [Yang et al. , 2023c, Schick et al. , 2023, Zhang, 2023].”
MethodSuperGLUE: A Stickier Benchmark for General-Purpose Language Understanding Systems
Wang, A., Pruksachatkun, Y., Nangia, N., Singh, A., Michael, J., Hill, F., Levy, O., & Bowman, S. R. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.00537 · Cited by 1,051 · cited 2×
“…along with other models like Gemini [Google, 2023], have achieved remarkable success in natural language processing, demonstrating supe-∗ rior performance on various benchmarks including Super-GLUE [Wang et al. , 2019], MMLU [Hendrycks et al. , 2020], and BIG-bench [Srivastava et al. , 2022].”
BackgroundCoQA: A Conversational Question Answering Challenge
Reddy, S., Chen, D., & Manning, C. D. (2019) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00266 · Cited by 975 · cited 1×
“It seeks to provide a comprehensive overview and analysis of existing RAG technologies and offer conclusions and prospects for future development methods.”
BackgroundCommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense Knowledge
Talmor, A., Herzig, J., Lourie, N., & Berant, J. (2019) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1421 · Cited by 919
Li, J., Li, D., Savarese, S., & Hoi, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.12597 · Cited by 908 · cited 11×
“CREA-ICL [ Li et al. , 2023b ] employs a synchronous retrieval of cross-lingual knowledge to enhance context, while RE-CITE [ Sun et al. , 2022 ] generates context by sampling para-graphs directly from LLMs.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialHellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?
Zellers, R., Holtzman, A., Bisk, Y., Farhadi, A., & Choi, Y. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1472 · Cited by 830
CommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense KnowledgePreprint
Talmor, A., Herzig, J., Lourie, N., & Berant, J. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1811.00937 · Cited by 822
Wizard of Wikipedia: Knowledge-Powered Conversational agentsPreprint
Dinan, E., Roller, S., Shuster, K., Fan, A., Auli, M., & Weston, J. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1811.01241 · Cited by 755
Bang, Y., Cahyawijaya, S., Lee, N., Dai, W., Su, D., Wilie, B., Lovenia, H., Ji, Z., Yu, T., Chung, W., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 3rd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.ijcnlp-main.45 · Cited by 682 · cited 1×
“Therefore, this paper aims to comprehensively summarize and organize the technical principles, developmental history, content, and, in particular, the relevant methods and applications after the emergence of LLMs, as well as the evaluation methods and application scenarios of RAG.”
MethodSQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Text
Rajpurkar, P., Zhang, J., Lopyrev, K., & Liang, P. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1606.05250 · Cited by 678
BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questions
Clark, C., Lee, K., Chang, M.-W., Kwiatkowski, T., Collins, M., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1300 · Cited by 655 · cited 1×
“This survey intends to furnish readers and practitioners with a thorough and systematic comprehension of large models and RAG, elucidate the progression and key technologies of retrieval augmentation, clarify the merits and limitations of various technologies along with their suitable contexts, and…”
BackgroundThe NarrativeQA Reading Comprehension Challenge
Kočiský, T., Schwarz, J., Blunsom, P., Dyer, C., Hermann, K. M., Melis, G., & Grefenstette, E. (2018) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00023 · Cited by 596
Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems
Cobbe, K., Kosaraju, V., Bavarian, M., Chen, M., Jun, H., Kaiser, L., Plappert, M., Tworek, J., Hilton, J., Nakano, R., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.14168 · Cited by 575
Retrieval Augmentation Reduces Hallucination in Conversation
Shuster, K., Poff, S., Chen, M., Kiela, D., & Weston, J. (2021) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021 · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-emnlp.320 · Cited by 575 · cited 1×
“It is also characterized as a “Retrieve-Read” framework [ Ma et al. , 2023a ] .”
BackgroundBeyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models
Srivastava, A., Rastogi, A., Rao, A., Shoeb, A. A. M., Abid, A., Fisch, A., Brown, A. R., Santoro, A., Gupta, A., Garriga-Alonso, A., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.04615 · Cited by 569
The JRC-Acquis: A Multilingual Aligned Parallel Corpus with 20+ Languages
Steinberger, R., Pouliquen, B., Widiger, A., Ignat, C., Erjavec, T., Tufis, D. I., & Varga, D. (2006) · Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC) · doi:10.63317/4yka5iuvhztz · Cited by 556
Siren's Song in the AI Ocean: A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models
Zhang, Y., Li, Y., Cui, L., Cai, D., Liu, L., Fu, T., Huang, X., Zhao, E., Zhang, Y., Xu, C., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.01219 · Cited by 544
Siren's Song in the AI Ocean: A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models
Zhang, Y., Li, Y., Cui, L., Cai, D., Liu, L., Fu, T., Huang, X., Zhao, E., Zhang, Y., Chen, Y., et al. (2025) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli.a.16 · Cited by 534 · cited 2×
“A common issue is the generation of incorrect information, or ”hallucina-tions” [ Zhang et al. , 2023b ] , especially when queries extend beyond the model’s training data or necessitate up-to-date information.”
BackgroundMethodNeural Text Generation from Structured Data with Application to the Biography Domain
Lebret, R., Grangier, D., & Auli, M. (2016) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d16-1128 · Cited by 534
Recommender Systems with Generative RetrievalPreprint
Rajput, S., Mehta, N., Singh, A., Keshavan, R. H., Vu, T., Heldt, L., Hong, L.-C., Tay, Y., Tran, V. Q., Samost, J., et al. (2023) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.05065 · Cited by 533 · cited 1×
“Discerning the importance and relevance of multiple retrieved passages to the generation task is another challenge, requiring the proper balance of each passage’s value.”
BackgroundCodeSearchNet Challenge: Evaluating the State of Semantic Code Search
Husain, H., Wu, H.-H., Gazit, T., Allamanis, M., & Brockschmidt, M. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.09436 · Cited by 483
Zero-Shot Relation Extraction via Reading Comprehension
Levy, O., Seo, M., Choi, E., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2017) · Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2017) · doi:10.18653/v1/k17-1034 · Cited by 482
Zero-Shot Relation Extraction via Reading Comprehension
Levy, O., Seo, M., Choi, E., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.04115 · Cited by 482
Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challenge
Clark, P., Cowhey, I., Etzioni, O., Khot, T., Sabharwal, A., Schoenick, C., & Tafjord, O. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1803.05457 · Cited by 462
Benchmarking Large Language Models in Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Chen, J., Lin, H., Han, X., & Sun, L. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.01431 · Cited by 455 · cited 4×
“…2023a ] addresses this by training compressors at different granularities, while Long Context [ Xu et al. , 2023b ] and “Walking in the Memory Maze” [ Chen et al. , 2023a ] design summarization techniques to enhance LLM’s key information perception, particularly in dealing with extensive contexts.”
BackgroundInfluentialIn-Context Retrieval-Augmented Language Models
Ram, O., Levine, Y., Dalmedigos, I., Muhlgay, D., Shashua, A., Leyton-Brown, K., & Shoham, Y. (2023) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00605 · Cited by 449 · cited 1×
“…progressed from simple token [ Khandelwal et al. , 2019 ] and entity retrieval [ Nishikawa et al. , 2022 ] to more complex structures like chunks [ Ram et al. , 2023 ] and knowledge graph [ Kang et al. , 2023 ] , with studies focusing on the granularity of retrieval and the level of data…”
BackgroundLongLLMLingua: Accelerating and Enhancing LLMs in Long Context Scenarios via Prompt Compression
Jiang, H., Wu, Q., Luo, X., Li, D., Lin, C.-Y., Yang, Y., & Qiu, L. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.91 · Cited by 400
Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens
Borgeaud, S., Mensch, A., Hoffmann, J., Cai, T., Rutherford, E., Millican, K., Driessche, G. V. D., Lespiau, J.-B., Damoc, B., Clark, A., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.04426 · Cited by 382 · cited 3×
“RETRO [Borgeaud et al. , 2022] leverages retrieval augmentation for large-scale pre-training from scratch, achieving a reduction in model parameters while surpassing standard GPT models in terms of perplexity.”
BackgroundMethodLeast-to-Most Prompting Enables Complex Reasoning in Large Language Models
Zhou, D., Schärli, N., Hou, L., Wei, J., Scales, N., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Cui, C., Bousquet, O., Le, Q., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.10625 · Cited by 380 · cited 1×
“Alignment optimization addresses alignment issues and disparities between documents by introducing “hypothetical questions” [ Li et al. , 2023d ] into documents to rectify alignment issues and differences.”
BackgroundPrecise Zero-Shot Dense Retrieval without Relevance Labels
Gao, L., Ma, X., Lin, J., & Callan, J. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.99 · Cited by 362 · cited 2×
“HyDE constructs query vectors using textual cues to generate a “hypothetical” document capturing essential patterns [ Gao et al. , 2022 ] .”
MethodPrecise Zero-Shot Dense Retrieval without Relevance Labels
Gao, L., Ma, X., Lin, J., & Callan, J. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.10496 · Cited by 362
Interleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Step Questions
Trivedi, H., Balasubramanian, N., Khot, T., & Sabharwal, A. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.10509 · Cited by 349 · cited 2×
“In contrast, IRCOT [ Trivedi et al. , 2022 ] combines RAG with Chain of Thought (CoT) methodologies, alternating CoT-guided retrievals with retrieval-informed CoT processes, significantly boosting GPT-3’s performance across various question-answering tasks.”
BackgroundMethodInterleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Step Questions
Trivedi, H., Balasubramanian, N., Khot, T., & Sabharwal, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.557 · Cited by 349
Siriwardhana, S., Weerasekera, R., Wen, E., Kaluarachchi, T., Rana, R., & Nanayakkara, S. (2023) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00530 · Cited by 337
Bai, Y., Kadavath, S., Kundu, S., Askell, A., Kernion, J., Jones, A., Chen, A., Goldie, A., Mirhoseini, A., & Kaplan, J. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.08073 · Cited by 326 · cited 1×
“This survey aims to out-line the entire RAG process and encompass the current and future directions of RAG research, by providing a thorough examination of retrieval augmentation in LLMs.”
MethodELI5: Long Form Question Answering
Fan, A., Jernite, Y., Perez, E., Grangier, D., Weston, J., & Auli, M. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.09190 · Cited by 325
ASQA: Factoid Questions Meet Long-Form AnswersPreprint
Stelmakh, I., Luan, Y., Dhingra, B., et al. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.06092 · Cited by 323
LLM Lies: Hallucinations are not Bugs, but Features as Adversarial ExamplesPreprint
Yao, J.-Y., Ning, K.-P., Liu, Z., Ning, M., Li, Y., & Yuan, L. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.01469 · Cited by 322 · cited 1×
“Therefore, this paper aims to comprehensively summarize and organize the technical principles, developmental history, content, and, in particular, the relevant methods and applications after the emergence of LLMs, as well as the evaluation methods and application scenarios of RAG.”
MethodELI5: long form question answering
Fan, A., Jernite, Y., Perez, E., Grangier, D., Weston, J., & Auli, M. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1346 · Cited by 319
Query2doc: Query Expansion with Large Language Models
Wang, L., Yang, N., & Wei, F. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.07678 · Cited by 315 · cited 8×
“Methods such as Query2Doc and ITER-RETGEN leverage LLMs to create a pseudo-document by combining the original query with additional guidance [ Wang et al. , 2023c, Shao et al. , 2023 ] .”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialDocument-Level Event Argument Extraction by Conditional Generation
Li, S., Ji, H., & Han, J. (2021) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.69 · Cited by 312
Vid2Seq: Large-Scale Pretraining of a Visual Language Model for Dense Video Captioning
Yang, A., Nagrani, A., Seo, P. H., Miech, A., Pont-Tuset, J., Laptev, I., Šivic, J., & Schmid, C. (2023) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52729.2023.01032 · Cited by 296 · cited 5×
“Vid2Seq augments language models with specialized temporal markers, facilitating the prediction of event boundaries and textual descriptions within a unified output sequence [ Yang et al. , 2023a ] .”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMeasuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding
Hendrycks, D., Burns, C., Basart, S., Zou, A., Mazeika, M., Song, D., & Steinhardt, J. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.03300 · Cited by 291 · cited 2×
“…along with other models like Gemini [Google, 2023], have achieved remarkable success in natural language processing, demonstrating supe-∗ rior performance on various benchmarks including Super-GLUE [Wang et al. , 2019], MMLU [Hendrycks et al. , 2020], and BIG-bench [Srivastava et al. , 2022].”
BackgroundConstructing A Multi-hop QA Dataset for Comprehensive Evaluation of Reasoning Steps
Ho, X., Duong Nguyen, A.-K., Sugawara, S., & Aizawa, A. (2020) · Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.580 · Cited by 287
RAFT: Adapting Language Model to Domain Specific RAG
Zhang, T., Patil, S. G., Jain, N., Shen, S., Zaharia, M., Stoica, I., & Gonzalez, J. E. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.10131 · Cited by 286 · cited 1×
“The retriever excels at retrieving relevant information from a vast knowledge base, but managing the substantial amount of information within retrieval documents is a challenge.”
BackgroundGeneralization through Memorization: Nearest Neighbor Language Models
Khandelwal, U., Levy, O., Jurafsky, D., Zettlemoyer, L., & Lewis, M. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.00172 · Cited by 285 · cited 2×
“For “what to retrieve” research has progressed from simple token [ Khandelwal et al. , 2019 ] and entity retrieval [ Nishikawa et al. , 2022 ] to more complex structures like chunks [ Ram et al. , 2023 ] and knowledge graph [ Kang et al. , 2023 ] , with studies focusing on the granularity of…”
Background♫ MuSiQue: Multihop Questions via Single-hop Question Composition
Trivedi, H., Balasubramanian, N., Khot, T., & Sabharwal, A. (2022) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00475 · Cited by 283
WebGPT: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback
Nakano, R., Hilton, J., Balaji, S., Wu, J., Ouyang, L., Kim, C., Hesse, C., Jain, S., Kosaraju, V., Saunders, W., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.09332 · Cited by 272 · cited 1×
“WebGPT [Nakano et al. , 2021] integrates a reinforcement learning framework to train the GPT-3 model in autonomously using a search engine during text generation.”
MethodRECOMP: Improving Retrieval-Augmented LMs with Compression and Selective AugmentationPreprint
Xu, F.-Y., Shi, W., & Choi, E. S. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.04408 · Cited by 267 · cited 3×
“Similarly, RECOMP adopts a comparable approach by training an information condenser using contrastive learning [ Xu et al. , 2023a ] .”
BackgroundMethodOpen-Set Recognition: a Good Closed-Set Classifier is All You Need?Preprint
Vaze, S., Han, K., Vedaldi, A., & Zisserman, A. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.06207 · Cited by 257 · cited 2×
“This division ensures a thorough evaluation of both the quality of context provided and the quality of content produced.”
BackgroundChain-of-Note: Enhancing Robustness in Retrieval-Augmented Language ModelsPreprint
Yu, W., Zhang, H.-M., Pan, X., et al. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.09210 · Cited by 251 · cited 3×
“By aligning the retriever’s capabilities with the preferences of the LLMs through feedback signals, both can be better coordinated [ Yu et al. , 2023b, Izacard et al. , 2022, Yang et al. , 2023b, Shi et al. , 2023 ] .”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationDid Aristotle Use a Laptop? A Question Answering Benchmark with Implicit Reasoning Strategies
Geva, M., Khashabi, D., Segal, E., Khot, T., Roth, D., & Berant, J. (2021) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00370 · Cited by 242
The power of noise: Redefining retrieval for rag systems
Cuconasu, F., Trappolini, G., Siciliano, F., Filice, S., Campagnano, C., Maarek, Y., Tonellotto, N., & Silvestri, F. (2024) · Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3626772.3657834 · Cited by 236 · cited 1×
“In RAG, the generator’s input encompasses not only typical contextual information but also relevant text segments obtained through the retriever.”
BackgroundTake a Step Back: Evoking Reasoning via Abstraction in Large Language ModelsPreprint
Zheng, H., Mishra, S. R., Chen, X., Cheng, H.-T., Ed, H., Le, Q. V., & Zhou, D. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.06117 · Cited by 226 · cited 2×
“STEP-BACKPROMPTING enables LLMs to perform abstract reasoning and retrieval based on high-level concepts [ Zheng et al. , 2023 ] .”
MethodAtlas: Few-shot Learning with Retrieval Augmented Language Models
Izacard, G., Lewis, P., Lomeli, M., Hosseini, L., Petroni, F., Schick, T., Dwivedi-Yu, J., Joulin, A., Riedel, S., & Grave, E. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2208.03299 · Cited by 213 · cited 5×
“The question of “when to retrieve” has led to strategies ranging from single [ Wang et al. , 2023e, Shi et al. , 2023 ] to adaptive [Jiang et al. , 2023b, Huang et al. , 2023] and multiple retrieval [Izacard et al. , 2022] methods.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMallen, A. T., Asai, A., Zhong, V., Das, R., Hajishirzi, H., & Khashabi, D. (2022) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.10511 · Cited by 213
Enhancing Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models with Iterative Retrieval-Generation Synergy
Shao, Z., Gong, Y., Shen, Y., Huang, M., Duan, N., & Chen, W. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.15294 · Cited by 200 · cited 6×
“ITER-RETGEN [Shao et al. , 2023] employs a synergistic approach that leverages “retrieval-enhanced generation” alongside “generation-enhanced re-trieval” for tasks that necessitate the reproduction of specific information.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialLyu, Y., li, Z., Niu, S., Xiong, F., Tang, B., Wang, W., Wu, H., Liu, H., Xu, T., & Chen, E. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3701228 · Cited by 199 · cited 1×
“Therefore, this section introduces two methods aimed at aligning the retriever outputs with the preferences of the LLMs.”
MethodMa, Y., Cao, Y., Hong, Y. S., & Sun, A. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.710 · Cited by 196 · cited 5×
“RRR introduces a framework that reverses the traditional retrieval and reading order, focusing on query rewriting [ Ma et al. , 2023a ] .”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialExplainable Automated Fact-Checking for Public Health Claims
Kotonya, N., & Toni, F. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.623 · Cited by 195
Kim, S., Joo, S. J., Kim, D., et al. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.14045 · Cited by 194
(2018) · doi:10.63317/2yu5nu76n7bu · Cited by 189
Multi-Sentence Argument Linking
Ebner, S., Xia, P., Culkin, R., Rawlins, K., & Durme, B. V. (2020) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.718 · Cited by 185
Saha, A., Pahuja, V., Khapra, M. M., Sankaranarayanan, K., & Chandar, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11332 · Cited by 185
Corrective Retrieval Augmented Generation
Yan, S.-Q., Gu, J.-C., Zhu, Y., & Ling, Z.-H. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.15884 · Cited by 182 · cited 2×
“Lastly, there’s a risk of generation models overly depending on augmented information, potentially resulting in outputs that merely reiterate the retrieved content without providing new value or synthesized information.”
BackgroundCoreferential Reasoning Learning for Language Representation
Ye, D., Lin, Y., Du, J., Liu, Z., Li, P., Sun, M., & Liu, Z. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.582 · Cited by 181 · cited 1×
“The overarching optimization goal is to train the language model to accurately restore the obscured spans, thereby enriching its understanding of entity semantics [ Ye et al. , 2020 ] .”
BackgroundQMSum: A New Benchmark for Query-based Multi-domain Meeting Summarization
Zhong, M., Yin, D., Yu, T., Zaidi, A., Mutuma, M., Jha, R., Awadallah, A. H., Celikyilmaz, A., Liu, Y., Qiu, X., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.472 · Cited by 178
Retrieval-Based Prompt Selection for Code-Related Few-Shot Learning
Nashid, N., Sintaha, M., & Mesbah, A. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse48619.2023.00205 · Cited by 178 · cited 1×
“RBPS [ Nashid et al. , 2023 ] excels in small-scale learning tasks by retrieving code examples that align with de-velopers’ objectives through encoding and frequency analysis.”
BackgroundLift Yourself Up: Retrieval-augmented Text Generation with Self MemoryPreprint
Cheng, X., Luo, D., Chen, X.-Y., et al. (2023) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.02437 · Cited by 177 · cited 8×
“Selfmem [Cheng et al. , 2023b] utilizes a retrieval-enhanced generator to create an unbounded memory pool iteratively, combining the “original question” and “dual question”.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialA Multi-Task Embedder For Retrieval Augmented LLMs
Zhang, P., Liu, Z., Xiao, S., Dou, Z., & Nie, J. (2024) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.194 · Cited by 173 · cited 2×
“A common issue is the generation of incorrect information, or ”hallucina-tions” [ Zhang et al. , 2023b ] , especially when queries extend beyond the model’s training data or necessitate up-to-date information.”
BackgroundMethodInterGen: Diffusion-Based Multi-human Motion Generation Under Complex Interactions
Liang, H., Zhang, W., Li, W., Jingyi Yu, A., & Xu, L. (2024) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-024-02042-6 · Cited by 172 · cited 1×
“As for ”how to use” the retrieved data, integration techniques have been developed across various levels of the model architecture, including the input [Khattab et al. , 2022], intermediate [Borgeaud et al. , 2022], and output layers [Liang et al. , 2023].”
MethodKnowledge Graph Prompting for Multi-Document Question Answering
Wang, Y., Lipka, N., Rossi, R. A., Siu, A., Zhang, R., & Derr, T. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.11730 · Cited by 170 · cited 1×
“It has also introduced various methods to optimize the retrieval process [ILIN, 2023].”
MethodLLMLingua: Compressing Prompts for Accelerated Inference of Large Language Models
Jiang, H., Wu, Q., Lin, C.-Y., Yang, Y., & Qiu, L. (2023) · arXiv · Cited by 168 · cited 6×
“Ad-ditionally, approaches like cohereAI rerank [ Cohere, 2023 ] , bge-rerank 7 , and LongLLMLingua [ Jiang et al. , 2023a ] re-calculate the semantic similarity between relevant text and the query, addressing the challenge of interpreting vector-based simulated searches for semantic similarity.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSCATTER: Selective Context Attentional Scene Text Recognizer
Litman, R., Anschel, O., Tsiper, S., Litman, R., Mazor, S., & Manmatha, R. (2020) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.01198 · Cited by 166 · cited 1×
“Approaches such as Selective Context and LLMLingua [ Litman et al. , 2020, Anderson et al. , 2022 ] utilize small language models to calculate prompt mutual information or perplexity, estimating element importance.”
MethodOpen-Domain Question–Answering
Prager, J. M. (2007) · Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1561/1500000001 · Cited by 157 · cited 1×
“It seeks to provide a comprehensive overview and analysis of existing RAG technologies and offer conclusions and prospects for future development methods.”
BackgroundLi, X., Zhao, R., Chia, Y. K., Ding, B., Joty, S., Poria, S., & Bing, L. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.13269 · Cited by 156 · cited 12×
“CREA-ICL [ Li et al. , 2023b ] employs a synchronous retrieval of cross-lingual knowledge to enhance context, while RE-CITE [ Sun et al. , 2022 ] generates context by sampling para-graphs directly from LLMs.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialRetrieval-Augmented Multimodal Language ModelingPreprint
Yasunaga, M., Aghajanyan, A., Shi, W., James, R., Leskovec, J., Liang, P., Lewis, M., Zettlemoyer, L., & Yih, W.-T. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.12561 · Cited by 144 · cited 1×
“RA-CM3 [Yasunaga et al. , 2022] stands as a pio-neering multimodal model of both retrieving and generating text and images.”
BackgroundLarge Language Models Struggle to Learn Long-Tail Knowledge
Kandpal, N., Deng, H., Roberts, A., Wallace, E., & Raffel, C. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.08411 · Cited by 143 · cited 1×
“Despite these advancements, LLMs exhibit notable limitations, particularly in handling domain-specific or highly specialized queries [ Kandpal et al. , 2023 ] .”
BackgroundFine-Tuning or Retrieval? Comparing Knowledge Injection in LLMs
Ovadia, O., Brief, M., Mishaeli, M., & Elisha, O. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.05934 · Cited by 143 · cited 1×
“These chunks are subsequently used as the expanded contextual basis for addressing the user’s request.”
MethodA Dataset of Information-Seeking Questions and Answers Anchored in Research Papers
Dasigi, P., Lo, K., Beltagy, I., Cohan, A., Smith, N. A., & Gardner, M. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.365 · Cited by 138
Large Language Models Can Be Easily Distracted by Irrelevant Context
Shi, F., Chen, X., Misra, K., Scales, N., Dohan, D., Chi, E., Schärli, N., & Zhou, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.00093 · Cited by 134 · cited 5×
“The question of “when to retrieve” has led to strategies ranging from single [ Wang et al. , 2023e, Shi et al. , 2023 ] to adaptive [Jiang et al. , 2023b, Huang et al. , 2023] and multiple retrieval [Izacard et al. , 2022] methods.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialG-Retriever: Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Textual Graph Understanding and Question Answering
He, X., Tian, Y., Sun, Y., Chawla, N. V., Laurent, T., LeCun, Y., Bresson, X., & Hooi, B. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.07630 · Cited by 122 · cited 1×
“Lastly, there’s a risk of generation models overly depending on augmented information, potentially resulting in outputs that merely reiterate the retrieved content without providing new value or synthesized information.”
BackgroundGraph-ToolFormer: To Empower LLMs with Graph Reasoning Ability via Prompt Augmented by ChatGPTPreprint
Zhang, J. (2023) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.11116 · Cited by 121 · cited 1×
“Graph-Toolformer, for instance, divides its retrieval process into distinct steps where LLMs proactively use retrievers, apply Self-Ask techniques, and employ few-shot prompts to initiate search queries.”
Wang, S., Xu, Y.-C., Fang, Y., et al. (2022) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.08773 · Cited by 119 · cited 2×
“The paper utilizes two common paradigms for fine-tuning, namely Joint-Encoder and Dual-Encoder [Arora et al. , 2023, Wang et al. , 2022b, Lewis et al. , 2020, Xia et al. , 2019, Cai et al. , 2021, Cheng et al. , 2022].”
MethodSelf-Knowledge Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Large Language ModelsPreprint
Wang, Y.-L., Li, P., Sun, M.-S., & Liu, Y. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.05002 · Cited by 116 · cited 8×
“Methods such as Query2Doc and ITER-RETGEN leverage LLMs to create a pseudo-document by combining the original query with additional guidance [ Wang et al. , 2023c, Shao et al. , 2023 ] .”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialLarge Language Model based Long-tail Query Rewriting in Taobao Search
Peng, W., Li, G., Jiang, Y., Wang, Z., Ou, D., Zeng, X., Xu, D., Xu, T., & Chen, E. (2024) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3589335.3648298 · Cited by 115 · cited 3×
“Additionally, reconciling differences in writing styles and tones to ensure consistency in the output is crucial.”
BackgroundTableGPT: Towards Unifying Tables, Nature Language and Commands into One GPTPreprint
Zha, L., Zhou, J., Li, L., Wang, R., Huang, Q., Yang, S., Yuan, J., Su, C., Li, X., Su, A., et al. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.08674 · Cited by 113 · cited 1×
“Lastly, there’s a risk of generation models overly depending on augmented information, potentially resulting in outputs that merely reiterate the retrieved content without providing new value or synthesized information.”
BackgroundSelf-citationLearning Dense Representations of Phrases at Scale
Lee, J., Sung, M., Kang, J., & Chen, D. (2021) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.518 · Cited by 105 · cited 1×
“Retrieval units vary from tokens (e.g., kNN-LM [ Khandelwal et al. , 2019 ] ) to phrases (e.g., NPM, COG [ Lee et al. , 2020, Lan et al. , 2022 ] ) and document paragraphs, with finer granularities offering precision at the cost of increased retrieval complexity.”
BackgroundAsai, A., Wu, Z., Wang, Y., Sil, A., & Hajishirzi, H. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.11511 · Cited by 101 · cited 3×
“Self-RAG [Asai et al. , 2023] introduces “reflection to-kens” that allow the model to introspect its outputs.”
BackgroundMethodSimple Entity-Centric Questions Challenge Dense Retrievers
Sciavolino, C., Zhong, Z., Lee, J., & Chen, D. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.496 · Cited by 98 · cited 1×
“In a further stage of generator training, the model acknowledges the critical role of entity semantics in the representation learning of textual data for retrieval, as highlighted by [ Sciavolino et al. , 2021, Zhang et al. , 2019 ] .”
MethodHotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering
Yang, Z., Qi, P., Zhang, S., Bengio, Y., Cohen, W. W., Salakhutdinov, R., & Manning, C. D. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1809.09600 · Cited by 97
Generate rather than Retrieve: Large Language Models are Strong Context Generators
Yu, W., Iter, D., Wang, S., Xu, Y., Ju, M., Sanyal, S., Zhu, C., Zeng, M., & Jiang, M. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.10063 · Cited by 95 · cited 4×
“Restructured RAG modules [Yu et al. , 2022] and iterative methodologies like [Shao et al. , 2023] have been developed to address specific issues.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialNeural Machine Translation with Monolingual Translation Memory
Cai, D., Wang, Y., Li, H., Lam, W. P., & Liu, L. (2021) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.567 · Cited by 95 · cited 1×
“The paper utilizes two common paradigms for fine-tuning, namely Joint-Encoder and Dual-Encoder [Arora et al. , 2023, Wang et al. , 2022b, Lewis et al. , 2020, Xia et al. , 2019, Cai et al. , 2021, Cheng et al. , 2022].”
MethodCMB: A Comprehensive Medical Benchmark in Chinese
Wang, X., Chen, G. H., Song, D., Zhang, Z., Chen, Z., Xiao, Q., Jiang, F., Li, J., Wan, X., Wang, B., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.08833 · Cited by 94
Bridging the Preference Gap between Retrievers and LLMsPreprint
Ke, Z.-X., Kong, W., Li, C., et al. (2024) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.06954 · Cited by 94 · cited 3×
“For example, Diversity Ranker prioritizes reordering based on document diversity, while LostInTheMiddleRanker alternates placing the best document at the beginning and end of the context window.”
BackgroundMethodChatlaw: A Multi-Agent Legal Assistant based on a Role-Aligned Mixture-of-Experts Architecture
Cui, J., Ning, M., Li, Z., Chen, B., Yan, Y., Li, H., Ling, B., Tian, Y., & Yuan, L. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.16092 · Cited by 94
Learning to Retrieve In-Context Examples for Large Language ModelsPreprint
Wang, L., Yang, N., & Wei, F. (2023) · Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.07164 · Cited by 92 · cited 2×
“Discerning the importance and relevance of multiple retrieved passages to the generation task is another challenge, requiring the proper balance of each passage’s value.”
BackgroundShall We Pretrain Autoregressive Language Models with Retrieval? A Comprehensive StudyPreprint
Wang, B., Ping, W., Xu, P., McAfee, L. C., Liu, Z., Shoeybi, M., Dong, Y., Kuchaiev, O., Li, B., Xiao, C., et al. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.06762 · Cited by 85 · cited 8×
“Methods such as Query2Doc and ITER-RETGEN leverage LLMs to create a pseudo-document by combining the original query with additional guidance [ Wang et al. , 2023c, Shao et al. , 2023 ] .”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialRetrieval-based Language Models and Applications
Asai, A., Min, S., Zhong, Z., & Chen, D. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 6: Tutorial Abstracts) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-tutorials.6 · Cited by 81 · cited 4×
“Self-RAG [Asai et al. , 2023] introduces “reflection to-kens” that allow the model to introspect its outputs.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialRAGAs: Automated Evaluation of Retrieval Augmented Generation
Es, S., James, J., Espinosa-Anke, L., & Schockaert, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.15217 · Cited by 79 · cited 3×
“Concurrently, state-of-the-art automated tools like RA-GAS [Es et al. , 2023], ARES [Saad-Falcon et al. , 2023], and TruLens 8 employ LLMs to adjudicate the quality scores.”
MethodChat-REC: Towards Interactive and Explainable LLMs-Augmented Recommender System
Gao, Y., Sheng, T., Xiang, Y., Xiong, Y., Wang, H., & Zhang, J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.14524 · Cited by 79 · cited 1×
“Consequently, the model’s own outputs are utilized instead of the training data [ Wang et al. , 2022a ] .”
MethodSelf-citationConditional Generation and Snapshot Learning in Neural Dialogue Systems
Wen, T.-H., Gašić, M., Mrkšić, N., Rojas-Barahona, L. M., Su, P.-H., Ultes, S., Vandyke, D., & Young, S. J. (2016) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d16-1233 · Cited by 78
Dense X Retrieval: What Retrieval Granularity Should We Use?
Chen, T., Wang, H., Chen, S., Yu, W., Ma, K., Zhao, X., Zhang, H., & Yu, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.06648 · Cited by 74 · cited 2×
“Response generation quality presents hallucination challenge, where the model generates answers not grounded in the provided context, as well as issues of irrelevant context and potential toxicity or bias in the model’s output.”
BackgroundSelf-citationRetrieval-Generation Synergy Augmented Large Language Models
Feng, Z., Feng, X., Zhao, D., Yang, M., & Qin, B. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp48485.2024.10448015 · Cited by 73 · cited 2×
“ITRG [Feng et al. , 2023] iteratively retrieves information to identify the correct reasoning paths, thereby improving task adaptability.”
BackgroundAugmented Large Language Models with Parametric Knowledge GuidingPreprint
Luo, Z., Xu, C., Zhao, P., Geng, X., Tao, C., Ma, J., Lin, Q., & Jiang, D. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.04757 · Cited by 66 · cited 2×
“Furthermore, PKG introduces an innovative method for integrating knowledge into white-box models via directive fine-tuning [ Luo et al. , 2023 ] .”
MethodREPLUG: Retrieval-augmented black-box language models
Shi, W., Min, S., Yasunaga, M., Seo, M., James, R., Lewis, M., Zettlemoyer, L., & Yih, W.-T. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.12652 · Cited by 65 · cited 4×
“By aligning the retriever’s capabilities with the preferences of the LLMs through feedback signals, both can be better coordinated [ Yu et al. , 2023b, Izacard et al. , 2022, Yang et al. , 2023b, Shi et al. , 2023 ] .”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialLong Time No See! Open-Domain Conversation with Long-Term Persona Memory
Xu, X., Gou, Z., Wu, W., Niu, Z.-Y., Wu, H., Wang, H., & Wang, S. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.05797 · Cited by 65
Self-citationUniMS-RAG: A Unified Multi-source Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Personalized Dialogue SystemsPreprint
Wang, H., Huang, W., Deng, Y., et al. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.13256 · Cited by 65
Self-citationMemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems
Packer, C., Wooders, S., Lin, K., Fang, V., Patil, S. G., Stoica, I., & Gonzalez, J. E. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.08560 · Cited by 64 · cited 1×
“With ongoing efforts to expand LLM context windows to virtually unlimited sizes, the adaptation of RAG to these changes presents a significant research question [Xu et al. , 2023c, Packer et al. , 2023, Xiao et al. , 2023].”
BackgroundRECALL: A Benchmark for LLMs Robustness against External Counterfactual KnowledgePreprint
Liu, Y., Huang, L., Li, S.-C., et al. (2023) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.08147 · Cited by 64 · cited 3×
“A notable issue, termed the “lost in the middle” phenomenon, arises when a single retrieval yields redundant content that may dilute or contradict essential information, thereby degrading the generation quality [ Liu et al. , 2023a ] .”
BackgroundTree of Clarifications: Answering Ambiguous Questions with Retrieval-Augmented Large Language ModelsPreprint
Kim, G., Kim, S., Jeon, B., et al. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.14696 · Cited by 63 · cited 1×
“ToC [ Kim et al. , 2023 ] creates a clarification tree that systematically optimizes the ambiguous parts in the Query.”
BackgroundTraining Language Models with Memory Augmentation
Zhong, Z., Lei, T., & Chen, D. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.12674 · Cited by 60 · cited 1×
“The preparation and curation of high-quality training datasets, defining fine-tuning objectives, and providing corresponding computational resources are necessary.”
BackgroundGaur, M., Gunaratna, K., Srinivasan, V., & Jin, H. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i10.21312 · Cited by 57 · cited 1×
“Lastly, there’s a risk of generation models overly depending on augmented information, potentially resulting in outputs that merely reiterate the retrieved content without providing new value or synthesized information.”
BackgroundFeng, Z.-Y., Ma, W.-T., Yu, W., Huang, L., Wang, H., Chen, Q., Peng, W., Feng, X.-C., Qin, B., & Liu, T. (2023) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.05876 · Cited by 57
Self-citationJiang, X., Zhang, R., Xu, Y., Qiu, R., Fang, Y., Wang, Z., Tang, J., Ding, H., Chu, X., Zhao, J., et al. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.15883 · Cited by 57 · cited 1×
“Lastly, there’s a risk of generation models overly depending on augmented information, potentially resulting in outputs that merely reiterate the retrieved content without providing new value or synthesized information.”
BackgroundReasoning on Graphs: Faithful and Interpretable Large Language Model Reasoning
Luo, L., Li, Y.-F., Haffari, G., & Pan, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.01061 · Cited by 56 · cited 1×
“Lastly, there’s a risk of generation models overly depending on augmented information, potentially resulting in outputs that merely reiterate the retrieved content without providing new value or synthesized information.”
BackgroundInstructRetro: Instruction Tuning post Retrieval-Augmented PretrainingPreprint
Wang, B., Ping, W., McAfee, L., Xu, P., Li, B., Shoeybi, M., & Catanzaro, B. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.07713 · Cited by 56 · cited 8×
“Methods such as Query2Doc and ITER-RETGEN leverage LLMs to create a pseudo-document by combining the original query with additional guidance [ Wang et al. , 2023c, Shao et al. , 2023 ] .”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialEfficient Streaming Language Models with Attention Sinks
Xiao, G., Tian, Y., Chen, B., Han, S., & Lewis, M. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.17453 · Cited by 55 · cited 1×
“With ongoing efforts to expand LLM context windows to virtually unlimited sizes, the adaptation of RAG to these changes presents a significant research question [Xu et al. , 2023c, Packer et al. , 2023, Xiao et al. , 2023].”
BackgroundPaperQA: Retrieval-Augmented Generative Agent for Scientific Research
Lála, J., O'Donoghue, O., Shtedritski, A., Cox, S., Rodriques, S. G., & White, A. D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.07559 · Cited by 55
Demonstrate-Search-Predict: Composing retrieval and language models for knowledge-intensive NLP
Khattab, O., Santhanam, K., Li, X. L., Hall, D., Liang, P., Potts, C., & Zaharia, M. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.14024 · Cited by 52 · cited 3×
“As for ”how to use” the retrieved data, integration techniques have been developed across various levels of the model architecture, including the input [Khattab et al. , 2022], intermediate [Borgeaud et al. , 2022], and output layers [Liang et al. , 2023].”
BackgroundMethodQuALITY: Question Answering with Long Input Texts, Yes!
Pang, R. Y., Parrish, A., Joshi, N., Nangia, N., Phang, J., Chen, A., Padmakumar, V., Ma, J., Thompson, J., He, H., et al. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.391 · Cited by 51
WikiAsp: A Dataset for Multi-domain Aspect-based Summarization
Hayashi, H., Budania, P., Wang, P., Ackerson, C., Neervannan, R., & Neubig, G. (2021) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00362 · Cited by 46
Auto-GPT for Online Decision Making: Benchmarks and Additional Opinions
Yang, H., Yue, S., & He, Y. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.02224 · Cited by 44 · cited 5×
“Vid2Seq augments language models with specialized temporal markers, facilitating the prediction of event boundaries and textual descriptions within a unified output sequence [ Yang et al. , 2023a ] .”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialPromptagator: Few-shot Dense Retrieval From 8 Examples
Dai, Z., Zhao, V. Y., Ma, J., Luan, Y., Ni, J., Lu, J., Bakalov, A., Guu, K., Hall, K. B., & Chang, M.-W. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.11755 · Cited by 43 · cited 2×
“Meanwhile, PROMPTAGA-TOR [Dai et al. , 2022] utilizes LLM as a few-shot query generator and, based on the generated data, creates task-specific retrievers.”
MethodGraph Based Translation Memory for Neural Machine Translation
Xia, M., Huang, G., Liu, L., & Shi, S. (2019) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33017297 · Cited by 43 · cited 1×
“The paper utilizes two common paradigms for fine-tuning, namely Joint-Encoder and Dual-Encoder [Arora et al. , 2023, Wang et al. , 2022b, Lewis et al. , 2020, Xia et al. , 2019, Cai et al. , 2021, Cheng et al. , 2022].”
MethodChain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination in Large Language Models
Dhuliawala, S., Komeili, M., Xu, J., Raileanu, R., Li, X., Celikyilmaz, A., & Weston, J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.11495 · Cited by 42 · cited 1×
“Alignment optimization addresses alignment issues and disparities between documents by introducing “hypothetical questions” [ Li et al. , 2023d ] into documents to rectify alignment issues and differences.”
BackgroundRetrieve-and-Sample: Document-level Event Argument Extraction via Hybrid Retrieval Augmentation
Ren, Y., Cao, Y., Guo, P., Fang, F., Ma, W., & Lin, Z. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.17 · Cited by 42
EASE: Entity-Aware Contrastive Learning of Sentence Embedding
Nishikawa, S., Ri, R., Yamada, I., et al. (2022) · North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.04260 · Cited by 42 · cited 1×
“For “what to retrieve” research has progressed from simple token [ Khandelwal et al. , 2019 ] and entity retrieval [ Nishikawa et al. , 2022 ] to more complex structures like chunks [ Ram et al. , 2023 ] and knowledge graph [ Kang et al. , 2023 ] , with studies focusing on the granularity of…”
BackgroundVisualize Before You Write: Imagination-Guided Open-Ended Text GenerationPreprint
Zhu, W., Yan, A., Lu, Y., Xu, W., Wang, X., Eckstein, M. P., & Wang, W. Y. (2022) · Findings · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.03765 · Cited by 40 · cited 1×
“The “Visualize Before You Write” method [ Zhu et al. , 2022 ] employs image generation to steer the LM’s text generation, showing promise in open-ended text generation tasks.”
MethodStructure-Aware Language Model Pretraining Improves Dense Retrieval on Structured DataPreprint
Li, X., Liu, Z., Xiong, C.-Y., Yu, S., Gu, Y., Liu, Z.-Y., & Yu, G. (2023) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.19912 · Cited by 39 · cited 11×
“CREA-ICL [ Li et al. , 2023b ] employs a synchronous retrieval of cross-lingual knowledge to enhance context, while RE-CITE [ Sun et al. , 2022 ] generates context by sampling para-graphs directly from LLMs.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialNarayan, S., Cohen, S. B., & Lapata, M. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1808.08745 · Cited by 39
PIQA: Reasoning about Physical Commonsense in Natural Language
Bisk, Y., Zellers, R., Le bras, R., Gao, J., & Choi, Y. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6239 · Cited by 37 · cited 1×
“This survey intends to furnish readers and practitioners with a thorough and systematic comprehension of large models and RAG, elucidate the progression and key technologies of retrieval augmentation, clarify the merits and limitations of various technologies along with their suitable contexts, and…”
BackgroundRetrieval-Augmented Generative Question Answering for Event Argument Extraction
Du, X., & Ji, H. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.07067 · Cited by 37 · cited 2×
“Discerning the importance and relevance of multiple retrieved passages to the generation task is another challenge, requiring the proper balance of each passage’s value.”
BackgroundMeasuring Massive Multitask Chinese UnderstandingPreprint
Zeng, H. (2023) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.12986 · Cited by 37
RAPTOR: Recursive Abstractive Processing for Tree-Organized Retrieval
Sarthi, P., Abdullah, S., Tuli, A., Khanna, S., Goldie, A., & Manning, C. D. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.18059 · Cited by 36
Open-source Large Language Models are Strong Zero-shot Query Likelihood Models for Document Ranking
Zhuang, S., Liu, B., Koopman, B., & Zuccon, G. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.13243 · Cited by 36 · cited 1×
“It provides more effective and accurate input for subsequent language model processing [Zhuang et al. , 2023].”
MethodRecitation-Augmented Language Models
Sun, Z., Wang, X., Tay, Y., Yang, Y., & Zhou, D. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.01296 · Cited by 34 · cited 2×
“CREA-ICL [ Li et al. , 2023b ] employs a synchronous retrieval of cross-lingual knowledge to enhance context, while RE-CITE [ Sun et al. , 2022 ] generates context by sampling para-graphs directly from LLMs.”
BackgroundMethodPrompt-Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Non-Knowledge-Intensive TasksPreprint
Guo, Z., Cheng, S., Wang, Y., et al. (2023) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.17653 · Cited by 34 · cited 1×
“For non-knowledge-intensive (NKI) tasks, PGRA [Guo et al. , 2023] proposes a two-stage framework, starting with a task-agnostic retriever followed by a prompt-guided reranker to select and prioritize evidence.”
MethodAnglE-optimized Text Embeddings
Li, X., & Li, J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.12871 · Cited by 32 · cited 2×
“The core concept involves rearranging document records to prioritize the most relevant items at the top, thereby limiting the total number of documents.”
BackgroundNeuro-Symbolic Language Modeling with Automaton-augmented Retrieval
Alon, U., Xu, F. F., He, J., Sengupta, S., Roth, D., & Neubig, G. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.12431 · Cited by 32 · cited 1×
“However, enhancing retrieval efficiency, improving document recall in large knowledge bases, and ensuring data secu-rity—such as preventing inadvertent disclosure of document sources or metadata by LLMs—are critical engineering challenges that remain to be addressed [Alon et al. , 2022].”
BackgroundIAG: Induction-Augmented Generation Framework for Answering Reasoning Questions
Zhang, Z., Zhang, X.-Y., Ren, Y., et al. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.18397 · Cited by 32
Knowledge-Augmented Language Model VerificationPreprint
Baek, J., Jeong, S., Kang, M., Park, J. C., & Hwang, S. J. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.12836 · Cited by 30 · cited 1×
“Improving RAG’s resistance to such adversarial or counterfactual inputs is gaining research momentum and has become a key performance metric [Yu et al. , 2023a, Glass et al. , 2021, Baek et al. , 2023].”
BackgroundNeural Machine Translation with Contrastive Translation Memories
Cheng, X., Gao, S., Liu, L.-M., et al. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.03140 · Cited by 27 · cited 1×
“The paper utilizes two common paradigms for fine-tuning, namely Joint-Encoder and Dual-Encoder [Arora et al. , 2023, Wang et al. , 2022b, Lewis et al. , 2020, Xia et al. , 2019, Cai et al. , 2021, Cheng et al. , 2022].”
MethodMaking Retrieval-Augmented Language Models Robust to Irrelevant Context
Yoran, O., Wolfson, T., Ram, O., & Berant, J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.01558 · Cited by 26 · cited 1×
“Furthermore, such singular retrieval is typically insufficient for complex problems demanding multi-step reasoning, as it provides a limited scope of information [ Yoran et al. , 2023 ] .”
BackgroundRA-DIT: Retrieval-Augmented Dual Instruction Tuning
Lin, X. V., Chen, X., Chen, M., Shi, W., Lomeli, M., James, R., Rodriguez, P., Kahn, J., Szilvasy, G., Lewis, M., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.01352 · Cited by 26 · cited 3×
“Finally, an index is created to store these text chunks and their vector embed-dings as key-value pairs, which allows for efficient and scalable search capabilities.”
BackgroundMethodCarExpert: Leveraging Large Language Models for In-Car Conversational Question Answering
Rony, M. R. A. H., Suess, C., Bhat, S. R., et al. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.09536 · Cited by 26 · cited 1×
“The community’s focal point shifted towards harnessing the capabilities of LLMs to attain heightened controllability and address evolving requirements.”
BackgroundRobust Retrieval Augmented Generation for Zero-shot Slot Filling
Glass, M., Rossiello, G., Chowdhury, M. F. M., & Gliozzo, A. (2021) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.148 · Cited by 25 · cited 1×
“Improving RAG’s resistance to such adversarial or counterfactual inputs is gaining research momentum and has become a key performance metric [Yu et al. , 2023a, Glass et al. , 2021, Baek et al. , 2023].”
BackgroundRetrieval-Augmented Data Augmentation for Low-Resource Domain TasksPreprint
Seo, M., Baek, J., Thorne, J., et al. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.13482 · Cited by 25 · cited 1×
“Redundancy and repetition are also concerns, especially when multiple retrieved passages contain similar information, resulting in repetitive content in the generated response.”
BackgroundSaha, S., Junaed, J. A., Saleki, M., Sharma, A. S., Rifat, M. R., Rahouti, M., Ahmed, S. I., Mohammed, N., & Amin, M. R. (2023) · Workshop on Bangla Language Processing (BLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.banglalp-1.9 · Cited by 25
Investigating the Factual Knowledge Boundary of Large Language Models with Retrieval Augmentation
Ren, R., Wang, Y., Qu, Y., Zhao, W. X., Liu, J., Tian, H., Wu, H., Wen, J.-R., & Wang, H. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.11019 · Cited by 21
Self-citationRetrieval meets Long Context Large Language Models
Xu, P., Ping, W., Wu, X., McAfee, L., Zhu, C., Liu, Z., Subramanian, S., Bakhturina, E., Shoeybi, M., & Catanzaro, B. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.03025 · Cited by 20 · cited 4×
“Similarly, RECOMP adopts a comparable approach by training an information condenser using contrastive learning [ Xu et al. , 2023a ] .”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialRetrieval-Generation Alignment for End-to-End Task-Oriented Dialogue SystemPreprint
Shen, W.-Z., Gao, Y.-Q., Huang, C.-B., et al. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.08877 · Cited by 19 · cited 2×
“Lastly, there’s a risk of generation models overly depending on augmented information, potentially resulting in outputs that merely reiterate the retrieved content without providing new value or synthesized information.”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationActive Retrieval Augmented Generation
Jiang, Z., Xu, F. F., Gao, L., Sun, Z., Liu, Q., Dwivedi-Yu, J., Yang, Y., Callan, J., & Neubig, G. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.06983 · Cited by 18 · cited 6×
“Ad-ditionally, approaches like cohereAI rerank [ Cohere, 2023 ] , bge-rerank 7 , and LongLLMLingua [ Jiang et al. , 2023a ] re-calculate the semantic similarity between relevant text and the query, addressing the challenge of interpreting vector-based simulated searches for semantic similarity.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialYang, H., Li, Z., Zhang, Y., Wang, J., Cheng, N., Li, M., & Xiao, J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.18347 · Cited by 18 · cited 5×
“Vid2Seq augments language models with specialized temporal markers, facilitating the prediction of event boundaries and textual descriptions within a unified output sequence [ Yang et al. , 2023a ] .”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialA Multi-Task Embedder For Retrieval Augmented LLMsPreprint
Zhang, P., Xiao, S., Liu, Z., et al. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.07554 · Cited by 18
Augmentation-Adapted Retriever Improves Generalization of Language Models as Generic Plug-In
Yu, Z., Xiong, C., Yu, S., & Liu, Z. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.17331 · Cited by 17 · cited 3×
“By aligning the retriever’s capabilities with the preferences of the LLMs through feedback signals, both can be better coordinated [ Yu et al. , 2023b, Izacard et al. , 2022, Yang et al. , 2023b, Shi et al. , 2023 ] .”
BackgroundMethodRaLLe: A Framework for Developing and Evaluating Retrieval-Augmented Large Language ModelsPreprint
Hoshi, Y., Miyashita, D., Ng, Y., Tatsuno, K., Morioka, Y., Torii, O., & Deguchi, J. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.10633 · Cited by 17 · cited 1×
“Tools like RALLE, designed for the automatic evaluation of RAG applications, similarly base their assessments on these task-specific metrics [ Hoshi et al. , 2023 ] .”
MethodContext Tuning for Retrieval Augmented GenerationPreprint
Anantha, R., Bethi, T., Vodianik, D., et al. (2023) · UNCERTAINLP · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.05708 · Cited by 17 · cited 1×
“Additionally, reconciling differences in writing styles and tones to ensure consistency in the output is crucial.”
BackgroundIAG: Induction-Augmented Generation Framework for Answering Reasoning Questions
Zhang, Z., Zhang, X., Ren, Y., Shi, S., Han, M., Wu, Y., Lai, R., & Cao, Z. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.1 · Cited by 17
Thakur, N., Bonifacio, L., Zhang, X. C., et al. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.11361 · Cited by 16
KnowledGPT: Enhancing Large Language Models with Retrieval and Storage Access on Knowledge Bases
Wang, X., Yang, Q., Qiu, Y., Liang, J., He, Q., Gu, Z., Xiao, Y., & Wang, W. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.11761 · Cited by 15 · cited 8×
“Methods such as Query2Doc and ITER-RETGEN leverage LLMs to create a pseudo-document by combining the original query with additional guidance [ Wang et al. , 2023c, Shao et al. , 2023 ] .”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialOptimizing Retrieval-augmented Reader Models via Token EliminationPreprint
Berchansky, M., Izsak, P., Caciularu, A., et al. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.13682 · Cited by 15 · cited 1×
“The token filtering approach employs cross-attention scores to efficiently filter tokens, selecting only the highest-scoring input to-kens [ Berchansky et al. , 2023 ] .”
MethodQuery Rewriting for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models
Ma, X., Gong, Y., He, P., Zhao, H., & Duan, N. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.14283 · Cited by 14 · cited 5×
“RRR introduces a framework that reverses the traditional retrieval and reading order, focusing on query rewriting [ Ma et al. , 2023a ] .”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialKnowledge Graph-Augmented Language Models for Knowledge-Grounded Dialogue Generation
Kang, M., Kwak, J. M., Baek, J., & Hwang, S. J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.18846 · Cited by 13 · cited 4×
“For example, fine-tuning LLMs to fit the structure of knowledge graphs [Kang et al. , 2023], the structure of text pairs [Kang et al. , 2023, Cheng et al. , 2023b], and other specific structures [Li et al. , 2023d].”
BackgroundInfluentialLongLLMLingua: Accelerating and Enhancing LLMs in Long Context Scenarios via Prompt Compression
Jiang, H., Wu, Q., Luo, X., Li, D., Lin, C.-Y., Yang, Y., & Qiu, L. (2023) · arXiv · Cited by 12 · cited 1×
“This approach not only captures the explicit information users seek but also un-covers deeper, transformative knowledge.”
BackgroundDual-Feedback Knowledge Retrieval for Task-Oriented Dialogue Systems
Shi, T., Li, L., Lin, Z., Yang, T., Quan, X., & Wang, Q. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.14528 · Cited by 12 · cited 2×
“The RRR model [ Ma et al. , 2023a ] introduces the Rewrite-Retrieve-Read process, utilizing the LLM performance as a reinforcement learning incentive for a rewriting module.”
BackgroundMethodIn-Context Retrieval-Augmented Language ModelsPreprint
Ram, O., Levine, Y., Dalmedigos, I., et al. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.00083 · Cited by 12
FABULA: Intelligence Report Generation Using Retrieval-Augmented Narrative Construction
Ranade, P., & Joshi, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1145/3625007.3627505 · Cited by 11 · cited 1×
“Lastly, there’s a risk of generation models overly depending on augmented information, potentially resulting in outputs that merely reiterate the retrieved content without providing new value or synthesized information.”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [107]107. N. Anderson, C. Wilson, and S. D. Richardson, "Lingua: Addressing scenarios for live interpretation and automatic dubbing," in Proceedings of the 15th Biennial Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (Volume 2: Users and Providers Track and Government Track), J. Campbell, S. Larocca, J. Marciano, K. Savenkov, and A. Yanishevsky, Eds. Orlando, USA: Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, Sep. 2022, pp. 202-209. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/2022.amta-upg.14
- [134]134. T. Möller, A. Reina, R. Jayakumar, and M. Pietsch, "Covid-qa: A question answering dataset for covid-19," in ACL 2020 Workshop on Natural Language Processing for COVID-19 (NLP-COVID), 2020.
- [177]177. P. Xu, W. Ping, X. Wu, L. McAfee, C. Zhu, Z. Liu, S. Subramanian, E. Bakhturina, M. Shoeybi, and B. Catanzaro, "Retrieval meets long context large language models," arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03025, 2023. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey of Large Language Models
Zhao, W. X., Zhou, K., Li, J., Tang, T., Dong, Z., Hou, Y., Zhang, B., Min, Y., Zhang, J., Liu, P., et al. (2026) · Frontiers of Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s11704-026-60308-3 · Cited by 2,093
A Survey on RAG Meeting LLMs: Towards Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models
Fan, W., Ding, Y., Ning, L., Wang, S., Li, H., Yin, D., Chua, T.-S., & Li, Q. (2024) · Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3637528.3671470 · Cited by 827
Memory in the Age of AI Agents
Hu, Y., Liu, S., Yue, Y., Zhang, G., Liu, B., Zhu, F., Lin, J., Guo, H., Dou, S., Xi, Z., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.13564 · Cited by 389
Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models
Dahl, M., Magesh, V., Suzgun, M., & Ho, D. E. (2024) · Journal of Legal Analysis · doi:10.1093/jla/laae003 · Cited by 559
A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models
Mei, L., Yao, J., Ge, Y., Wang, Y., Bi, B., Cai, Y., Liu, J., Li, M., Li, Z.-Z., Zhang, D., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.13334 · Cited by 281
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