REVIEW 10 cited by
RARR: Researching and Revising What Language Models Say, Using Language Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
RARR: Researching and Revising What Language Models Say, Using Language Models
read the original abstract
Language models (LMs) now excel at many tasks such as few-shot learning, question answering, reasoning, and dialog. However, they sometimes generate unsupported or misleading content. A user cannot easily determine whether their outputs are trustworthy or not, because most LMs do not have any built-in mechanism for attribution to external evidence. To enable attribution while still preserving all the powerful advantages of recent generation models, we propose RARR (Retrofit Attribution using Research and Revision), a system that 1) automatically finds attribution for the output of any text generation model and 2) post-edits the output to fix unsupported content while preserving the original output as much as possible. When applied to the output of several state-of-the-art LMs on a diverse set of generation tasks, we find that RARR significantly improves attribution while otherwise preserving the original input to a much greater degree than previously explored edit models. Furthermore, the implementation of RARR requires only a handful of training examples, a large language model, and standard web search.
Forward citations
Cited by 10 Pith papers
-
Do You Need a Frontier Model as a Citation Verifier? Benchmarking Rubric LLMs for Deep-Research Source Attribution
Cheaper LLM judges match frontier models on citation-quality F1 but differ substantially in false positive and false negative rates, meaning reward signal calibration matters more than model cost.
-
AI Assistance for Human Review of Default Judgments
LLM assistant with citation grounding improves accuracy by 6% and review speed by 25.9% in a simulated study of default judgment review.
-
ZeroSearch: Incentivize the Search Capability of LLMs without Searching
ZeroSearch simulates search engine interactions via supervised fine-tuning of a retrieval module and curriculum-based RL degradation of document quality, achieving comparable or superior performance to real search eng...
-
ZeroSearch: Incentivize the Search Capability of LLMs without Searching
ZeroSearch uses supervised fine-tuning to create a simulated retrieval module and curriculum-based RL rollouts that degrade document quality to train LLMs on search capabilities without real search API calls.
-
LIMO: Less is More for Reasoning
LIMO achieves 63.3% on AIME24 and 95.6% on MATH500 via supervised fine-tuning on roughly 1% of the data used by prior models, supporting the claim that minimal strategic examples suffice when pre-training has already ...
-
The Flan Collection: Designing Data and Methods for Effective Instruction Tuning
The Flan Collection demonstrates that task balancing, data enrichment, and mixed prompt training are critical to effective instruction tuning, yielding stronger Flan-T5 models released publicly.
-
HalluScan: A Systematic Benchmark for Detecting and Mitigating Hallucinations in Instruction-Following LLMs
HalluScan benchmark tests hallucination detectors on LLMs, identifies NLI Verification as top performer with 0.88 AUROC, and introduces HalluScore (r=0.41 with humans) plus a routing method for 2x cost savings.
-
Uncertainty-Aware Web-Conditioned Scientific Fact-Checking
An uncertainty-gated fact-checking system decomposes claims atomically, verifies them against context, and selectively searches the web only for uncertain facts, outperforming benchmarks while abstaining on conflicts.
-
Galactica: A Large Language Model for Science
Galactica, a science-specialized LLM, reports higher scores than GPT-3, Chinchilla, and PaLM on LaTeX knowledge, mathematical reasoning, and medical QA benchmarks while outperforming general models on BIG-bench.
-
HalluScan: A Systematic Benchmark for Detecting and Mitigating Hallucinations in Instruction-Following LLMs
HalluScan benchmark evaluates hallucination detection in LLMs, reporting NLI Verification at AUROC 0.88 and introducing HalluScore (r=0.41 with humans) plus Adaptive Detection Routing for 2x cost savings.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.