The DOI matches its DataCite record.
How Does Knowledge Selection Help Retrieval Augmented Generation?
Open accessAbstract
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is a powerful method for enhancing natural language generation by integrating external knowledge into a model's output. While prior work has demonstrated the importance of improving knowledge retrieval for boosting generation quality, the role of knowledge selection, a.k.a. reranking or filtering, remains less clear. This paper empirically analyzes how knowledge selection influences downstream generation performance in RAG systems. By simulating different retrieval and selection conditions through a controlled mixture of gold and distractor knowledge, we assess the impact of these factors on generation outcomes. Our findings indicate that the downstream generator model's capability, as well as the complexity of the task and dataset, significantly influence the impact of knowledge selection on the overall RAG system performance. In typical scenarios, improving the knowledge recall score is key to enhancing generation outcomes, with the knowledge selector providing limited benefit when a strong generator model is used on clear, well-defined tasks. For weaker generator models or more ambiguous tasks and datasets, the knowledge F1 score becomes a critical factor, and the knowledge selector plays a more prominent role in improving overall performance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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
“Ambiguity in questions can hinder performance, particularly in less powerful LLMs, making it challenging to achieve significant improvements in responses generation, even with improved knowledge selection.42”
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 [42]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 30
- Tom B Brown. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165. · arXiv
- Florin Cuconasu, Giovanni Trappolini, Federico Sicil- iano, Simone Filice, Cesare Campagnano, Yoelle Maarek, Nicola Tonellotto, and Fabrizio Silvestri. 2024. The power of noise: Redefining retrieval for rag systems. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Develop- ment in Information Retrieval, pages 719-729.
- Emily Dinan, Stephen Roller, Kurt Shuster, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and Jason Weston. 2019. Wizard of Wikipedia: Knowledge-powered conversational agents. In Proceedings of the International Confer- ence on Learning Representations (ICLR).
- Wenqi Fan, Yujuan Ding, Liangbo Ning, Shijie Wang, Hengyun Li, Dawei Yin, Tat-Seng Chua, and Qing Li. 2024. A survey on rag meeting llms: Towards retrieval-augmented large language models. In Pro- ceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 6491- 6501.
- Robert Friel, Masha Belyi, and Atindriyo Sanyal. 2024. Ragbench: Explainable benchmark for retrieval- augmented generation systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11005. · arXiv
- Aoran Gan, Hao Yu, Kai Zhang, Qi Liu, Wenyu Yan, Zhenya Huang, Shiwei Tong, and Guoping Hu. 2025. Retrieval augmented generation evaluation in the era of large language models: A comprehensive survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14891. · arXiv
- Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, and Haofen Wang. 2023. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997. · arXiv
- Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasu- pat, and Mingwei Chang. 2020. Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In International confer- ence on machine learning, pages 3929-3938.
- PMLR.
- Bowen Jin, Jinsung Yoon, Jiawei Han, and Sercan O Arik. 2025. Long-context LLMs meet RAG: Over- coming challenges for long inputs in RAG. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations.
- Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. TriviaQA: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehen- sion. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol- ume 1: Long Papers), pages 1601-1611, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open- domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6769-6781, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yu- taka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large lan- guage models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:22199- 22213.
- Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Red- field, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Ken- ton Lee, Kristina Toutanova, Llion Jones, Matthew Kelcey, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew M. Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. 2019. Natu- ral questions: A benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, 7:452-466. · DOI · Paper page
- Jinhyuk Lee, Anthony Chen, Zhuyun Dai, Dheeru Dua, Devendra Singh Sachan, Michael Boratko, Yi Luan, Sébastien MR Arnold, Vincent Perot, Siddharth Dalmia, et al. 2024. Can long-context language mod- els subsume retrieval, rag, sql, and more? arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13121. · arXiv
- Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020a. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and com- prehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Sha Li, Mahdi Namazifar, Di Jin, Mohit Bansal, Heng Ji, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2022. Enhancing knowledge selection for grounded dialogues via doc- ument semantic graphs. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2810-2823, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
- Xiangci Li, Linfeng Song, Lifeng Jin, Haitao Mi, Jes- sica Ouyang, and Dong Yu. 2024. A knowledge plug- and-play test bed for open-domain dialogue genera- tion. In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 2024), pages 666-676, Torino, Italia. ELRA and ICCL.
- Nikita Moghe, Siddhartha Arora, Suman Banerjee, and Mitesh M. Khapra. 2018. Towards exploiting back- ground knowledge for building conversation systems. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empiri- cal Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2322-2332, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Com- putational Linguistics. · DOI
- Kurt Shuster, Spencer Poff, Moya Chen, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2021. Retrieval augmentation reduces hallucination in conversation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 3784-3803, Punta Cana, Do- minican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Weiwei Sun, Pengjie Ren, and Zhaochun Ren. 2023. Generative knowledge selection for knowledge- grounded dialogues. In Findings of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2023, pages 2077-2088, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- David Thulke, Nico Daheim, Christian Dugast, and Hermann Ney. 2021. Efficient Retrieval Augmented Generation from Unstructured Knowledge for Task- Oriented Dialog. In Workshop on DSTC9, AAAI.
- Dingmin Wang, Qiuyuan Huang, Matthew Jackson, and Jianfeng Gao. 2024. Retrieve what you need: A mutual learning framework for open-domain ques- tion answering. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:247-263.
- Zhiruo Wang, Jun Araki, Zhengbao Jiang, Md Rizwan Parvez, and Graham Neubig. 2023. Learning to filter context for retrieval-augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08377. · arXiv
- Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits rea- soning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824-24837.
- Siye Wu, Jian Xie, Jiangjie Chen, Tinghui Zhu, Kai Zhang, and Yanghua Xiao. 2024. How easily do irrelevant inputs skew the responses of large language models? In First Conference on Language Modeling.
- Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christo- pher D. Manning. 2018. HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empiri- cal Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2369-2380, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Com- putational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Yeqin Zhang, Haomin Fu, Cheng Fu, Haiyang Yu, Yong- bin Li, and Cam-Tu Nguyen. 2023. Coarse-to-fine knowledge selection for document grounded dialogs. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Confer- ence on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5. IEEE.
- Xinping Zhao, Yan Zhong, Zetian Sun, Xinshuo Hu, Zhenyu Liu, Dongfang Li, Baotian Hu, and Min Zhang. 2025. FunnelRAG: A coarse-to-fine progres- sive retrieval paradigm for RAG. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025, pages 3029-3046, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Xinxin Zheng, Feihu Che, Jinyang Wu, Shuai Zhang, Shuai Nie, Kang Liu, and Jianhua Tao. 2024. Ks-llm: Knowledge selection of large language models with evidence document for question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15660. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Liu, S., McCoy, A. B., & Wright, A. (2025) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocaf008 · Cited by 200
Metadata
- Authors
- Li, X., & Ouyang, J.
- Affiliations
- Amazon (United States) (US)
- The University of Texas at Dallas (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- Pages
- 4104-4121
- arXiv
- 2410.13258
- OpenAlex
- W4416035224
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 8.53
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- retrieval-augmented generation, knowledge selection, re-ranking, knowledge filtering, knowledge recall, task ambiguity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review