REVIEW 9 cited by
Fine-Tuning or Retrieval? Comparing Knowledge Injection in LLMs
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
Fine-Tuning or Retrieval? Comparing Knowledge Injection in LLMs
read the original abstract
Large language models (LLMs) encapsulate a vast amount of factual information within their pre-trained weights, as evidenced by their ability to answer diverse questions across different domains. However, this knowledge is inherently limited, relying heavily on the characteristics of the training data. Consequently, using external datasets to incorporate new information or refine the capabilities of LLMs on previously seen information poses a significant challenge. In this study, we compare two common approaches: unsupervised fine-tuning and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). We evaluate both approaches on a variety of knowledge-intensive tasks across different topics. Our findings reveal that while unsupervised fine-tuning offers some improvement, RAG consistently outperforms it, both for existing knowledge encountered during training and entirely new knowledge. Moreover, we find that LLMs struggle to learn new factual information through unsupervised fine-tuning, and that exposing them to numerous variations of the same fact during training could alleviate this problem.
Forward citations
Cited by 9 Pith papers
-
StepCodeReasoner: Aligning Code Reasoning with Stepwise Execution Traces via Reinforcement Learning
StepCodeReasoner aligns code reasoning with verifiable stepwise execution traces via print anchors and bi-level GRPO reinforcement learning, reaching SOTA results on CRUXEval (91.1%) and LiveCodeBench (86.5%) for a 7B model.
-
Understanding New-Knowledge-Induced Factual Hallucinations in LLMs: Analysis and Interpretation
Fine-tuning on new knowledge induces propagating hallucinations in LLMs by weakening attention to key entities, with mitigation via reintroducing known knowledge during later training stages.
-
Data Quality over Capacity: Internalizing Documents into LoRA Adapters for Closed-Book QA
For closed-book QA via LoRA adapters, once capacity is sufficient, training-data quality—especially answer brevity—outperforms rank, learning rate, and architecture changes, lifting 15-doc accuracy from 57.7% to 85.7%.
-
ARIA: Adaptive Retrieval Intelligence Assistant -- A Multimodal RAG Framework for Domain-Specific Engineering Education
ARIA is a multimodal RAG framework that filters domain-specific questions with 97.5% accuracy and outperforms ChatGPT-5 on pedagogical quality for a university civil engineering course.
-
A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions
The paper surveys hallucination in LLMs with an innovative taxonomy, factors, detection methods, benchmarks, mitigation strategies, and open research directions.
-
Assessment of RAG and Fine-Tuning for Industrial Question-Answering-Applications
RAG is more effective and cost-efficient than fine-tuning for industrial QA adaptation on automotive datasets.
-
A Survey on Large Language Models for Code Generation
A systematic literature review that organizes recent work on LLMs for code generation into a taxonomy covering data curation, model advances, evaluations, ethics, environmental impact, and applications, with benchmark...
-
Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey
A survey of RAG paradigms, components, benchmarks, and challenges for improving LLMs on knowledge-intensive tasks.
-
Building Task Bots with Self-learning for Enhanced Adaptability, Extensibility, and Factuality
A thesis that combines self-learning from dialog logs, schema-guided prompting, and self-aligned factuality to build task bots with minimal human intervention.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.