Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 27 references

Balancing Content Size in RAG-Text2SQL System

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that richer schema documents improve RAG retrieval on their own but degrade the Text2SQL generation as prompts grow, putting the best end-to-end balance at a moderate content level.

desk verdict Plausible practical trade-off, but the retrieval evaluation never checks ground truth, so the central claim rests on a weak first half. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.15723 v3 pith:6O7TNP75 submitted 2025-01-28 cs.IR cs.AIcs.DB

Prakhar Gurawa , Anjali Dharmik This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IRcs.AIcs.DB
keywords Text-to-SQLRetrieval-AugmentedGenerationdocumentsizeschemadocumentshallucinationpromptengineeringSPIDERbenchmarktrade-off
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that document content in a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) plus natural-language-to-SQL (Text2SQL) pipeline has opposite effects on the two halves of the system. Making each per-table schema document larger, by adding textual descriptions, example INSERT statements, or both, improves the RAG retriever's ability to spread out and rank its top candidates, but the same extra content inflates the prompt given to the Text2SQL model and makes its generated SQL less faithful. Using a subset of the SPIDER benchmark, the authors build seven document sets ranging from bare CREATE TABLE statements to schema-plus-description documents and measure both retrieval and end-to-end SQL quality. Their central finding is that the combined system peaks at Document Set 4, a normalized schema plus two example inserts, and that adding descriptive text beyond that point raises hallucination rates and lowers query similarity and execution match. A reader should care because it challenges the common assumption that richer retrieval context is always better for deployed systems.

What carries the argument

The central object is the document set, a corpus in which each document represents one SQL table; the authors create seven progressively richer variations of the same SPIDER subset. The mechanism that carries the argument is the coupling between document content and the two stages: the same content moves the spread of RAG relevance scores, measured by range, standard deviation, and DCG, and the size and noise of the prompt consumed by the Text2SQL model. This coupling is what produces the observed curve, where retrieval improves with content while end-to-end SQL quality peaks earlier and then declines.

What would settle it

Run the same seven document sets and compare each query's top-3 retrieved tables against the tables referenced in the SPIDER ground-truth SQL; if the richer document sets do not retrieve the correct tables more often than Document Set 4, or if score spread and table-retrieval accuracy diverge, the claimed retrieval benefit and the trade-off narrative are unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that document size and the performance of a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) + Text2SQL system form a trade-off, not a monotonic curve. Retrieval quality by the paper's measures improves as document content increases: the range and standard deviation of top-3 relevance scores grow, and DCG improves as lower scores indicate higher relevance. Yet when the same documents are passed into the prompt of the Text2SQL model, performance rises only through Document Set 4, a normalized CREATE TABLE statement plus two example INSERT queries, and then drops when textual table and column descriptions are added in Document Set 5. The drop shows up as lower similarity under normalized edit distance, embedding matching, and fuzzy matching, more column-selection and operation mismatches, and worse agreement on database execution. The paper's conclusion is that what serves the retriever is not what serves the generator, so document design must be optimized for the combined system rather than for RAG alone.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on treating the spread of RAG relevance scores, range, standard deviation, and DCG, as proof that retrieval quality improved; the paper never checks whether the retrieved tables are the tables the correct SPIDER query actually references.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Deployments that tune the RAG layer alone, by maximizing retrieval score spread, will not automatically get better SQL; they may be selecting a configuration that hurts the generator.
  • Schema documents with a normalized CREATE TABLE plus one or two example INSERT statements appear to be a low-cost sweet spot for an 8B-parameter SQL model on SPIDER-like schemas.
  • If the degradation is prompt-size driven, then raising the number of retrieved documents should be accompanied by shortening each document to keep total prompt size constant.
  • Hallucination analysis should be reported per SQL component, because the paper shows column selection is the most error-prone component under larger prompts.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's first half is only about score spread; a quantitative table-recall comparison against the ground-truth SQL would turn 'retrieval improves with content' into a directly testable claim rather than an inferred one.
  • If large-prompt hallucination is the mechanism, then a dynamic content filter that retrieves a rich document but passes only the referenced table and its relevant columns to the generator should dominate any fixed document set; the paper proposes the idea in its optimization section but does not test it.
  • For stronger Text2SQL models, the degradation point should move to larger document sizes; that gives a concrete calibration experiment for the paper's trade-off.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies how the amount of content in schema documents affects a RAG + Text2SQL pipeline built on a subset of the SPIDER benchmark. Seven document sets are constructed by adding normalized schemas, example INSERT statements, and textual descriptions. The authors evaluate retrieval with spread-based scores (range, standard deviation, DCG) and evaluate end-to-end SQL generation with similarity, component-match, and execution-comparison metrics. They conclude that moderately enriched documents (Document Set 4) give the best overall trade-off, and that richer documents help retrieval but hurt generation.

Significance. If the empirical claims were fully supported, the paper would offer practical, low-cost guidance for practitioners choosing how much schema detail to store in a RAG corpus, and it would quantify a real trade-off between retrieval quality and prompt size. The study is clearly described, uses a standard benchmark, and releases code. Its current significance is limited by evaluation choices that do not measure retrieval against ground truth and by the absence of statistical rigor; these are fixable within the manuscript's scope.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1, §6.1] The RAG evaluation metrics (AvgRange, AvgStdDev, AvgDCG) quantify only the spread of raw relevance scores among the top-k retrieved documents. They never compare the retrieved tables with the tables actually referenced in the SPIDER ground-truth SQL, even though every query has a ground-truth SQL that the authors already use for end-to-end evaluation. As a result, the central claim in §7 item 1 that increasing the content size of documents benefits the RAG component independently is not supported: a retriever assigning well-separated scores to entirely wrong tables would appear to improve on all three metrics. Please add a ground-truth-based retrieval measure (e.g., recall@3 or MRR over tables referenced by the ground-truth SQL) for each document set.
  2. [§5.2] The thresholds for normalized edit distance (0.5), embedding cosine similarity (0.85), and fuzzy matching (75) are described as determined empirically, but no justification, sensitivity analysis, or cross-metric agreement is reported. The end-to-end results, including Figure 7, contain no exact percentages, error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The §7 item 5 claim that Document Set 4 exhibited the best overall performance is therefore based on visual inspection of point estimates, and the drop between sets 4 and 5 could be within noise. Please report per-metric numeric values, a threshold-ablation study, and either confidence intervals or paired statistical tests across queries.
  3. [§5.1, Eq. (1)] The DCG formula uses the raw RAG relevance score (where lower scores are more relevant) in place of rel(i), which in standard DCG must be a higher-is-better graded relevance label. With this substitution, the reported downward trend of AvgDCG is just a weighted average of the raw distance scores and carries no information about ranking quality. Either define a proper DCG using binary or graded ground-truth relevance, or remove DCG from the retrieval evaluation.
  4. [§4.2, §6.2, §7 item 3] The document-set design changes multiple factors at once: sets 1–4 vary schema formatting and the number of INSERT examples, while sets 5–7 additionally add textual descriptions. The claim that the utility of one-shot examples diminishes when documents already contain substantial content is therefore not identifiable from these data, since the effect of the INSERT statement is confounded with the presence of textual descriptions. A factorial design (crossing description presence and number of examples) would be needed to support this finding.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.4.1] The prompt template example appears truncated; it ends inside the assistant header rather than showing the completed output format.
  2. [Abstract, §6.1] The text references key thresholds where performance degradation occurs, but the only numeric thresholds in the paper are the similarity thresholds in §5.2; the degradation thresholds should be stated explicitly or rephrased.
  3. [Figures 2–4] Figures 2–4 would benefit from error bars or per-query variance, even for the retrieval metrics.
  4. [Table 1] Table 1 lists domains and query counts but not the number of tables per domain; adding that column would help readers assess retrieval difficulty.
  5. [References] The reference Observations on Building RAG Systems for Technical Documents has an unusual author string and should be formatted consistently with the other entries.
  6. [Title and text] Minor typos: LLama should be Llama, and the title on the first line has unintended spacing (RAG-T EXT 2SQL S YSTEM).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The RAG 'benefit' in the central trade-off is defined as score dispersion, so the retrieval half of the main claim reduces to the metric by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.1 (Evaluation Metric for the RAG System); applied in Section 6.1; cited in Section 7 item 1]
    "A superior RAG system is characterized by its ability to assign a broader range of relevance scores, demonstrating a clear differentiation between valid and non-relevant documents. Conversely, if the scores for the top-k documents are closely clustered, it indicates difficulty in discrimination and potential confusion in the system."

    RAG performance is operationalized only as dispersion of the system's own relevance scores (range, standard deviation, and a DCG computed with rel(i) = raw score, where lower is better). The paper then observes that richer documents increase range and standard deviation and lower DCG, and presents this as 'increasing the content size of documents benefits the RAG component independently' (Section 7). Since 'benefit' was defined as broader spread, the retrieval-side conclusion is the same statement as the metric definition; no ground-truth table selection from SPIDER is used to verify that wider score gaps correspond to correct retrieval. The causal claim therefore reduces, for its RAG leg, to a self-defined scoring property.

full rationale

The paper contains no load-bearing self-citation chain: all cited prior work is external, and the Text2SQL-side evaluation uses database execution against SPIDER ground-truth SQL, which is an independent empirical check. The circularity is confined to the retrieval half of the central trade-off. Section 5.1 defines a better RAG system as one with a broader spread of relevance scores, and Section 6.1 then reports that richer documents produce exactly that broader spread; Section 7 item 1 converts this into 'benefits the RAG component independently.' That is a self-definitional finding rather than an externally validated retrieval result, and the DCG variant is likewise just a weighted average of the raw score with the paper's own 'lower is better' convention. Because the overall conclusion (Document Set 4 best overall) also depends on this retrieval-benefit leg, the circularity is partial but material, giving a score of 6 rather than a lower score. The end-to-end execution comparison and component-mismatch analysis do provide independent content, which prevents the whole derivation from collapsing by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no invented entities and makes no first-principles derivation. Its conclusions rest on several unvalidated measurement choices: the RAG quality metric is an internal score statistic; the hallucination metric relies on hand-set similarity thresholds; and the SPIDER subset and single model are assumed representative. These are domain assumptions rather than free parameters in a mathematical sense, with the explicit numeric thresholds being the closest thing to fitted constants.

free parameters (4)
  • Normalized edit distance threshold = 0.5
    Used to classify generated SQL as similar to ground truth; 'determined empirically' in Section 5.2 with no sensitivity analysis.
  • Embedding cosine similarity threshold = 0.85
    Threshold for SQL query embedding matching in Section 5.2; chosen without justification or robustness check.
  • Fuzzy matching threshold = 75
    Threshold for fuzzy string similarity in Section 5.2; chosen without justification.
  • Number of retrieved documents k = 3
    Set in Section 4.3 based on the assumption that a SQL query involves at most three tables; results could shift with other k values.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SPIDER subset (719 queries, 54 tables, 15 domains) is representative of Text2SQL workloads
    Section 4.1 states use of a curated subset; generalizability to other schemas/domains is asserted, not established.
  • domain assumption The similarity metrics (edit distance, embedding, fuzzy, component matching) are valid proxies for SQL correctness and hallucination
    Section 5.2 defines hallucination via these metrics; no validation against human annotations or execution outcomes.
  • domain assumption The spread of RAG relevance scores indicates retrieval quality
    Section 5.1 defines a superior RAG system as one with broader score spread, without comparing against ground-truth relevant tables.
  • domain assumption SQLCoder-8B is a representative Text2SQL model
    Section 4.4; only one model tested, so conclusions may not transfer.
  • domain assumption all-MiniLM-L12-v2 embeddings capture schema relevance
    Used for both retrieval and SQL similarity; no comparison to other embedding models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Balancing Content Size in RAG-Text2SQL System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6O7TNP75

@misc{pith2026250215723,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Balancing Content Size in RAG-Text2SQL System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6O7TNP75}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.15723}
}
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as a promising solution for converting natural language queries into SQL commands, enabling seamless database interaction. However, these Text-to-SQL (Text2SQL) systems face inherent limitations, hallucinations, outdated knowledge, and untraceable reasoning. To address these challenges, the integration of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) with Text2SQL models has gained traction. RAG serves as a retrieval mechanism, providing essential contextual information, such as table schemas and metadata, to enhance the query generation process. Despite their potential, RAG + Text2SQL systems are susceptible to the quality and size of retrieved documents. While richer document content can improve schema relevance and retrieval accuracy, it also introduces noise, increasing the risk of hallucinations and reducing query fidelity as the prompt size of the Text2SQL model increases. This research investigates the nuanced trade-off between document size and quality, aiming to strike a balance that optimizes system performance. Key thresholds are identified where performance degradation occurs, along with actionable strategies to mitigate these challenges. Additionally, we explore the phenomenon of hallucinations in Text2SQL models, emphasizing the critical role of curated document presentation in minimizing errors. Our findings provide a roadmap for enhancing the robustness of RAG + Text2SQL systems, offering practical insights for real-world applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.15723 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. End-to-End Pipeline of the RAG + Text2SQL System [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Variation of Avg. Range of Scores over different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Variation of Avg. DCG of Scores over different document sets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Percentage of queries marked as similar for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Percentage of queries giving same results on database execution across different document sets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A survey on employing large language models for text-to-sql tasks

    Liang Shi, Zhengju Tang, Nan Zhang, Xiaotong Zhang, and Zhi Yang. A survey on employing large language models for text-to-sql tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15186,

    arXiv

  2. [4]

    Rae, Erich Elsen, and Laurent Sifre

    Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George van den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, Diego de Las Casas, Aurelia Guy, Jacob Menick, Roman Ring, Tom Hennigan, Saffron Huang, Loren Maggiore, Chris Jones, Albin Cassirer, Andy Brock, Michela Paganini, Geoffrey Irving, Ori...

    arXiv

  3. [6]

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.981

    Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.981. URL https://aclanthology.org/2024.emnlp-main.981/. Pranab Sahoo, Ayush Kumar Singh, Sriparna Saha, Vinija Jain, Samrat Mondal, and Aman Chadha. A systematic survey of prompt engineering in large language models: Techniques and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07927,

    arXiv 2024

  4. [7]

    Efficient prompting methods for large language models: A survey

    Kaiyan Chang, Songcheng Xu, Chenglong Wang, Yingfeng Luo, Xiaoqian Liu, Tong Xiao, and Jingbo Zhu. Efficient prompting methods for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01077,

    arXiv

  5. [8]

    Liu, Tianyi Zhang, and Percy Liang

    Nelson F. Liu, Tianyi Zhang, and Percy Liang. Evaluating verifiability in generative search engines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09848,

    arXiv

  6. [10]

    doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.173

    Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.173. URL https://aclanthology.org/2020. acl-main.173/. Ning Bian, Hongyu Lin, Peilin Liu, Yaojie Lu, Chunkang Zhang, Ben He, Xianpei Han, and Le Sun. Influence of external information on large language models mirrors social cognitive patterns. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.04812,

    arXiv 2020

  7. [11]

    Evaluating correctness and faithfulness of instruction-following models for question answering

    Vaibhav Adlakha, Parishad BehnamGhader, Xing Han Lu, Nicholas Meade, and Siva Reddy. Evaluating correctness and faithfulness of instruction-following models for question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.16877,

    arXiv

  8. [12]

    Gonzalez, Carlos Guestrin, and Matei Zaharia

    Asim Biswal, Liana Patel, Siddarth Jha, Amog Kamsetty, Shu Liu, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Carlos Guestrin, and Matei Zaharia. Text2sql is not enough: Unifying ai and databases with tag. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14717,

    arXiv

Show all 27 references
  1. [13]

    Seq2sql: Generating structured queries from natural language using reinforcement learning

    Victor Zhong, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. Seq2sql: Generating structured queries from natural language using reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.00103,

    arXiv

  2. [15]

    Towards understanding retrieval accuracy and prompt quality in rag systems

    Shengming Zhao, Yuheng Huang, Jiayang Song, Zhijie Wang, Chengcheng Wan, and Lei Ma. Towards understanding retrieval accuracy and prompt quality in rag systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19463, 2024a. Jia He, Mukund Rungta, David Koleczek, Arshdeep Sekhon, Franklin X Wang, and...

    arXiv

  3. [16]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-V oss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom 17 Balancing Content Size in RAG-Text2SQL System A PREPRINT H...

    2005 arXiv

  4. [17]

    Large language models are zero-shot reasoners

    Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.11916,

    arXiv

  5. [18]

    Question-analysis prompting improves llm performance in reasoning tasks

    Dharunish Yugeswardeenoo, Kevin Zhu, and Sean O’Brien. Question-analysis prompting improves llm performance in reasoning tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03624,

    arXiv

  6. [19]

    Check your facts and try again: Improving large language models with external knowledge and automated feedback

    Baolin Peng, Michel Galley, Pengcheng He, Hao Cheng, Yujia Xie, Yu Hu, Qiuyuan Huang, Lars Liden, Zhou Yu, Weizhu Chen, and Jianfeng Gao. Check your facts and try again: Improving large language models with external knowledge and automated feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12813,

    arXiv

  7. [20]

    Neural path hunter: Reducing hallucination in dialogue systems via path grounding

    Nouha Dziri, Andrea Madotto, Osmar Zaiane, and Avishek Joey Bose. Neural path hunter: Reducing hallucination in dialogue systems via path grounding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08455,

    arXiv

  8. [22]

    A stitch in time saves nine: Detecting and mitigating hallucinations of llms by validating low-confidence generation

    Neeraj Varshney, Wenlin Yao, Hongming Zhang, Jianshu Chen, and Dong Yu. A stitch in time saves nine: Detecting and mitigating hallucinations of llms by validating low-confidence generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03987,

    arXiv

  9. [23]

    Chain-of-verification reduces hallucination in large language models

    Shehzaad Dhuliawala, Mojtaba Komeili, Jing Xu, Roberta Raileanu, Xian Li, Asli Celikyilmaz, and Jason Weston. Chain-of-verification reduces hallucination in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11495,

    arXiv

  10. [24]

    Cunningham, and David Blei

    Andrew Jesson, Nicolas Beltran-Velez, Quentin Chu, Sweta Karlekar, Jannik Kossen, Yarin Gal, John P. Cunningham, and David Blei. Estimating the hallucination rate of generative ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07457,

  11. [25]

    Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task

    Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, Zilin Zhang, and Dragomir Radev. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task. arXiv prep...

    arXiv

  12. [27]

    ISBN 978-3-031-53963-3

    Springer Nature Switzerland. ISBN 978-3-031-53963-3. Matthijs Douze, Alexandr Guzhva, Chengqi Deng, Jeff Johnson, Gergely Szilvasy, Pierre-Emmanuel Mazaré, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, and Hervé Jégou. The faiss library. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.08281,

    arXiv

  13. [2017]

    Observations on building rag systems for technical documents

    Observations on Building RAG Systems for Technical Documents. Observations on building rag systems for technical documents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00657,

    arXiv

  14. [2019]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for ai-generated content: A survey

    Penghao Zhao, Hailin Zhang, Qinhan Yu, Zhengren Wang, Yunteng Geng, Fangcheng Fu, Ling Yang, Wentao Zhang, Jie Jiang, and Bin Cui. Retrieval-augmented generation for ai-generated content: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19473, 2024b. Ayman Asad Khan, Md Toufique Hasan, Kai...

    arXiv

  15. [2020]

    ISBN 9781713829546

    Curran Associates Inc. ISBN 9781713829546. Gautier Izacard, Patrick Lewis, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, Fabio Petroni, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Armand Joulin, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. Atlas: Few-shot learning with retrieval augmented language models. arXiv pr...

    arXiv

  16. [2021]

    Foulds, and Shimei Pan

    Philip Feldman, James R. Foulds, and Shimei Pan. Trapping llm hallucinations using tagged context prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.06085,

    arXiv

  17. [2022]

    Searching for best practices in retrieval-augmented generation

    Xiaohua Wang, Zhenghua Wang, Xuan Gao, Feiran Zhang, Yixin Wu, Zhibo Xu, Tianyuan Shi, Zhengyuan Wang, Shizheng Li, Qi Qian, Ruicheng Yin, Changze Lv, Xiaoqing Zheng, and Xuanjing Huang. Searching for best practices in retrieval-augmented generation. In Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mohit...

    2024

  18. [2023]

    On faithfulness and factuality in abstractive summarization

    Joshua Maynez, Shashi Narayan, Bernd Bohnet, and Ryan McDonald. On faithfulness and factuality in abstractive summarization. In Dan Jurafsky, Joyce Chai, Natalie Schluter, and Joel Tetreault, editors, Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational ...

    1906

  19. [2024]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey

    16 Balancing Content Size in RAG-Text2SQL System A PREPRINT Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, Meng Wang, and Haofen Wang. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997,

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.