Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Automatic Dataset Generation for Knowledge Intensive Question Answering Tasks

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fine-tuning Llama-3-8b and Mistral-7b-v0.3 on LLM-generated QA pairs from IBM Technotes can improve no-context QA scores over training on human-annotated TechQA data, but the evaluation may be inflated by test-document overlap.

desk verdict A standard synthetic-data fine-tuning pipeliner with one interesting no-context result that is likely undermined by train/test contamination, since generation used all 11,960 Technotes. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14212 v1 pith:FCQRNYOH submitted 2025-05-20 cs.CL cs.AI

Sizhe Yuen , Ting Su , Ziyang Wang , Yali Du , Adam J. Sobey This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords generationknowledgepairsreasoningautomatedbleucomplexdata
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 tries to answer a practical question: can a language model make its own practice questions from technical manuals, and then get better at answering real questions by training on that self-generated practice set? The authors build a pipeline that takes IBM technical support documents (Technotes) and asks Mistral-7b-instruct-v0.3 to produce up to ten factual questions per document, then answer each one. They filter out questions the model could not answer and mark answers that look unfinished. The result is a synthetic dataset of roughly 55,000 question-answer pairs, which is much larger than TechQA's 1,400 human-annotated pairs.

They fine-tune Llama-3-8b and Mistral-7b-v0.3 on either the human data, the synthetic data, or nothing, and test in two modes: with the relevant document supplied, and without it. With the document in hand, training on the human data works best. Without the document, the synthetic-trained models score higher on F1, BLEU, and ROUGE in some settings, suggesting that the larger synthetic set teaches more memorized knowledge.

The results, however, rely on a delicate assumption. The synthetic training data is generated from the same corpus of 11,960 Technotes that the TechQA benchmark was built from. The paper never states that it excluded the specific documents linked to the test questions. If test-document content leaked into the synthetic training set, the no-context improvement could simply be memorization. There are also no error bars, and the reported numbers in the abstract do not match any single row of the results table.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim appears in Section 4.2: 'we find that when no context is provided, using the generated dataset on both Llama and Mistral models exhibits the best performance in 1-shot and 5-shot prompts.' If the paper is correct, fine-tuning on LLM-generated QA pairs produces better no-context answers than fine-tuning on human-annotated TechQA data.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the synthetic QA generation did not use the documents behind the dev/test questions. Section 4 states that 'the original training and development test splits are maintained from TechQA', but Table 1 reports generation from all 11,960 IBM Technotes without saying whether that generation was restricted to training-split documents. If dev/test contexts were included in the synthetic training set, the no-context improvements (Mistral F1 0.858 vs 0.836) could reflect memorization of test documents rather than better reasoning.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an automated QA-pair generation pipeline: an LLM (Mistral-7b-instruct-v0.3) generates up to 10 factoid QA pairs per IBM Technote from TechQA, filters them via BERT semantic similarity and a RoBERTa sentence-completion classifier, and then fine-tunes Llama-3-8b and Mistral-7b-v0.3 with QLoRA. The authors evaluate with and without the context document in 0-shot, 1-shot, and 5-shot training and inference settings, reporting F1, BLEU, and ROUGE. The headline claim (Section 4.2) is that in the no-context setting, fine-tuning on the generated dataset outperforms fine-tuning on human-annotated TechQA pairs for 1-shot and 5-shot prompts (e.g., Mistral F1 0.858 vs 0.836; Llama F1 0.843 vs 0.831). With context, human-annotated training remains best. The paper includes code as supplementary material and a NeurIPS-style checklist, and it states limitations in Section 5.1.

Significance. If the no-context result is valid, the contribution is practically useful: it lowers annotation cost for domain-specific QA, demonstrates a concrete pipeline (generation, filtering, QLoRA fine-tuning) on a real technical-support corpus, and provides a reproducible recipe. The authors are transparent about some limitations (single dataset, small models, quantisation) and release code. However, the central comparison is currently undercut by (i) ambiguous train/dev/test separation between the synthetic generation and evaluation, (ii) absence of error bars or significance tests for small differences, and (iii) at least one apparent data integrity issue in Table 3. These issues must be resolved before the headline claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4, Table 1] The paper never states that QA generation was restricted to the training-split documents. Section 4 says 'the original training and development test splits are maintained from TechQA,' but Table 1 reports generation from all 11,960 IBM Technotes, which is the full corpus size and therefore includes the documents behind the dev/test questions unless explicitly excluded. If synthetic training pairs were generated from dev/test contexts, the no-context improvements in Table 3 (Mistral F1 0.858 vs 0.836; Llama 0.843 vs 0.831) could reflect memorisation of test-proximate content rather than better reasoning. The authors must clarify the exact document set used for generation and, if it included dev/test documents, rerun the experiments with generation restricted to the training split.
  2. [Checklist item 7; Tables 2–3] The checklist admits there are no error bars, yet the headline comparisons are small: the best no-context F1 advantages are 0.022 (Mistral) and 0.012 (Llama), with EM 0.000 in nearly every no-context row and low BLEU/ROUGE (e.g., Mistral BLEU 0.172 vs 0.083). Without repeated runs, confidence intervals, or significance tests, these differences cannot be distinguished from seed variation, especially given that the generated training set is worse or comparable in the 0-shot setting (e.g., Llama generated 0-shot F1 0.816–0.818 vs original 0.815–0.822; Mistral generated 0-shot F1 0.820 vs original 0.817–0.828). Report standard deviations or significance tests for the comparisons that support the central claim.
  3. [Table 3] The no-context results contain what appears to be a copy-paste error. In the Llama 'original 0-shot training' block, the EM column reports 0.154 for 1-shot inference and 0.220 for 5-shot inference, values identical to the with-context Table 2 block; all other no-context rows have EM 0.000. Since exact-match answers should be near-impossible without context, these entries are suspect and must be corrected or explained.
  4. [§4.2, Figure 3] The claim that the generated dataset leads to 'better learning' and improved reasoning in the no-context setting is stronger than the metrics support. The no-context BLEU and ROUGE scores are very low (best BLEU 0.172, best ROUGE 0.260), and the only consistent gains are in BERTScore F1, a semantic-similarity metric that is known to be insensitive to word order and content errors. The authors should temper the reasoning claim or provide qualitative examples showing improved logical coherence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2] The sentence 'A 0-shot, 1-shot, and 5-shot prompting strategy is used during the fine-tuning process' is ambiguous: Tables 2 and 3 distinguish training shot from inference shot, but the text does not explain how examples are selected for few-shot prompts; clarify the protocol.
  2. [§3.3] Perplexity is listed as an evaluation metric but no perplexity values are reported anywhere in the paper; either add the results or remove the metric from the evaluation description.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract contains the phrase '0.260 of for the LLM generated QA pairs,' which appears to have a typo; fix the wording.
  4. [Tables 2 and 3] Tables 2 and 3 would be easier to read if the 'Training Shot' and 'Inference Shot' columns were merged or if repeated configuration cells were visually grouped; the current layout makes it hard to verify the row-level claims in Section 4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the empirical comparison is not equivalent to its inputs, though the synthetic-data split handling should be stated more explicitly.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an empirical pipeline: generate synthetic QA pairs from TechQA Technotes, fine-tune Llama-3-8b and Mistral-7b-v0.3, and evaluate on TechQA's held-out splits. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing claim is justified by a self-citation or by an imported uniqueness theorem. The comparison between generated and human-annotated training data is a standard fine-tuning experiment against an external benchmark. The only in-scope concern is that Section 4 reports generating QA pairs from all 11,960 IBM Technotes without explicitly stating whether this generation was restricted to documents in the TechQA training split; however, the same passage states that 'the original training and development test splits are maintained from TechQA,' and the paper does not claim that dev/test documents were excluded from the synthetic training set. This is an ambiguity in reporting that should be clarified for reproducibility and to rule out memorization, but it is not a demonstrated circular reduction: the test questions are human-annotated TechQA questions, not the generated synthetic questions, and the paper's text is consistent with having maintained the splits for the synthetic data as well. Consequently, there is no specific step, equation, or fitted parameter that reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the choice of TechQA as benchmark, the assumption that automatic metrics capture QA quality, and the unstated assumption that the synthetic training set is cleanly separated from test documents. The filtering thresholds and fine-tuning hyperparameters are additional hand-set quantities that are not swept or reported with uncertainty.

free parameters (6)
  • Max questions per context = 10
    The generation prompt requests 'the 10 most interesting and factoid possible questions' per document, determining the dataset size and diversity.
  • BERT semantic similarity threshold
    Used in the Unanswered and Unrelated QA checks to automatically remove QA pairs; the threshold controls how many pairs are discarded and is not reported.
  • RoBERTa sentence completion threshold
    Used to mark answers as unfinished with '***unfinished***'; the classification threshold is not disclosed.
  • QLoRA rank/alpha = r=8, alpha=16
    Low-rank adaptation hyperparameters chosen for efficiency; affect the capacity of fine-tuning.
  • Learning rate / weight decay = 5e-5 / 0.01
    Fine-tuning hyperparameters chosen based on QLoRA recommendations; no sweeps reported.
  • Number of fine-tuning epochs
    Not reported; required to reproduce the fine-tuning.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption TechQA human-annotated QA pairs are a valid gold standard for evaluating QA performance.
    The paper uses TechQA's original train/dev/test splits for all evaluation without justifying that the human answers are the correct target.
  • domain assumption BLEU, ROUGE, and F1 scores are adequate proxies for answer quality and 'logical coherence/factual accuracy'.
    The abstract claims improvements in logical coherence and factual accuracy, but these metrics measure surface and embedding similarity, not truth or logic.
  • domain assumption The synthetic QA pairs produced by Mistral-7b-instruct-v0.3 are sufficient in quality and diversity to improve fine-tuning.
    The paper does not include a human evaluation or error analysis of the generated QA pairs, and only applies automated filters.
  • ad hoc to paper The automated filters correctly identify low-quality synthetic QA pairs and do not introduce bias.
    The BERT-based similarity and RoBERTa completion checks are introduced ad hoc in this paper; their accuracy and calibration are not validated.
  • ad hoc to paper The synthetic training data and the evaluation benchmark are disjoint enough that no-context performance measures generalization rather than memorization.
    This is the weakest premise: the paper never states that documents linked to dev/test questions were excluded from the 11,960 Technotes used to generate synthetic QA pairs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Automatic Dataset Generation for Knowledge Intensive Question Answering Tasks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FCQRNYOH

@misc{pith2026250514212,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Automatic Dataset Generation for Knowledge Intensive Question Answering Tasks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FCQRNYOH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14212}
}
read the original abstract

A question-answering (QA) system is to search suitable answers within a knowledge base. Current QA systems struggle with queries requiring complex reasoning or real-time knowledge integration. They are often supplemented with retrieval techniques on a data source such as Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). However, RAG continues to face challenges in handling complex reasoning and logical connections between multiple sources of information. A novel approach for enhancing Large Language Models (LLMs) in knowledge-intensive QA tasks is presented through the automated generation of context-based QA pairs. This methodology leverages LLMs to create fine-tuning data, reducing reliance on human labelling and improving model comprehension and reasoning capabilities. The proposed system includes an automated QA generator and a model fine-tuner, evaluated using perplexity, ROUGE, BLEU, and BERTScore. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate improvements in logical coherence and factual accuracy, with implications for developing adaptable Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. Mistral-7b-v0.3 outperforms Llama-3-8b with BERT F1, BLEU, and ROUGE scores 0.858, 0.172, and 0.260 of for the LLM generated QA pairs compared to scores of 0.836, 0.083, and 0.139 for the human annotated QA pairs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14212 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example generation procedure of QA pairs with the TechQA dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. F1 score when answering with the context document provided. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. F1 score when answering with no context provided. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. GraphQAG: A Knowledge-Graph-Guided Visual Analytics Framework for Question-Answer Pairs Generation

    cs.HC 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A KG-plus-visualization workflow helps users generate and refine document QA pairs better than prompt-only LLM use on inspection tasks, with mixed gains on set quality.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A bert baseline for the natural questions

    Chris Alberti, Kenton Lee, and Michael Collins. A bert baseline for the natural questions. 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Self-RAG: Learning to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection

    Akari Asai, Zeqiu Wu, Yizhong Wang, Avirup Sil, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Self-RAG: Learning to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection. InThe 12th International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=hSyW5go0v8

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Estevão Filho, Todd Hendry, Daniel Holstein, Jennifer Marsman, Nick Mecklenburg, Sara Malvar, Leonardo O

    Angels Balaguer, Vinamra Benara, Renato Luiz de Freitas Cunha, Roberto de M. Estevão Filho, Todd Hendry, Daniel Holstein, Jennifer Marsman, Nick Mecklenburg, Sara Malvar, Leonardo O. Nunes, Rafael Padilha, Morris Sharp, Bruno Silva, Swati Sharma, Vijay Aski, and Ranveer Chandra. Rag vs fine-tuning: Pipelines, tradeoffs, and a case study on agriculture, 20...

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Seven failure points when engineering a retrieval augmented generation system, 2024

    Scott Barnett, Stefanus Kurniawan, Srikanth Thudumu, Zach Brannelly, and Mohamed Abdelrazek. Seven failure points when engineering a retrieval augmented generation system, 2024. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2401.05856

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  6. [6]

    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 Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwi...

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    The TechQA dataset

    Vittorio Castelli, Rishav Chakravarti, Saswati Dana, Anthony Ferritto, Radu Florian, Martin Franz, Dinesh Garg, Dinesh Khandelwal, Scott McCarley, Michael McCawley, Mohamed Nasr, Lin Pan, Cezar Pendus, 8 John Pitrelli, Saurabh Pujar, Salim Roukos, Andrzej Sakrajda, Avi Sil, Rosario Uceda-Sosa, Todd Ward, and Rong Zhang. The TechQA dataset. In Dan Jurafsky...

    2020

  8. [8]

    Legal-bert: The muppets straight out of law school

    Ilias Chalkidis, Manos Fergadiotis, Prodromos Malakasiotis, Nikolaos Aletras, and Ion Androutsopoulos. Legal-bert: The muppets straight out of law school. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 2898–2904, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Reading Wikipedia to answer open-domain questions

    Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. Reading Wikipedia to answer open-domain questions. In Regina Barzilay and Min-Yen Kan, editors,Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (V olume 1: Long Papers), pages 1870...

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    Dialog inpainting: Turning documents to dialogs

    Zhuyun Dai, Arun Tejasvi Chaganty, Vincent Zhao, Aida Amini, Mike Green, Qazi Rashid, and Kelvin Guu. Dialog inpainting: Turning documents to dialogs. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). PMLR, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Unsloth, 2023

    Michael Han Daniel Han and Unsloth team. Unsloth, 2023. URL http://github.com/unslothai/ unsloth

    2023

  4. [12]

    Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms, 2023

    Tim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14314

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirec- tional transformers for language understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805, 2018

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirec- tional transformers for language understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Precise zero-shot dense retrieval without relevance labels, 2022

    Luyu Gao, Xueguang Ma, Jimmy Lin, and Jamie Callan. Precise zero-shot dense retrieval without relevance labels, 2022. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2212.10496

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey, 2024

    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, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10997

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Re2g: Retrieve, rerank, generate

    Michael Glass, Gaetano Rossiello, Md Faisal Mahbub Chowdhury, Ankita Naik, Pengshan Cai, and Alfio Gliozzo. Re2g: Retrieve, rerank, generate. InProceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tec...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al- Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, Anirudh Goyal, Anthony Hartshorn, Aobo Yang, Archi Mitra, Archie Sravankumar, Artem Korenev, Ar...

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Evaluating large language models in generating synthetic hci research data: a case study

    Perttu Hämäläinen, Mikke Tavast, and Anton Kunnari. Evaluating large language models in generating synthetic hci research data: a case study. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’23, New York, NY , USA, 2023. Association for Comp...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Retrieve, annotate, evaluate, repeat: Leveraging multimodal llms for large-scale product retrieval evaluation,

    Kasra Hosseini, Thomas Kober, Josip Krapac, Roland V ollgraf, Weiwei Cheng, and Ana Peleteiro Ramallo. Retrieve, annotate, evaluate, repeat: Leveraging multimodal llms for large-scale product retrieval evaluation,

  12. [20]

    Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen

    Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2106.09685

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering, 2021

    Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering, 2021. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2007.01282

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Perplexity—a measure of the difficulty of speech recognition tasks.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 62(S1):S63–S63, 1977

    Fred Jelinek, Robert L Mercer, Lalit R Bahl, and James K Baker. Perplexity—a measure of the difficulty of speech recognition tasks.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 62(S1):S63–S63, 1977

    1977

  15. [23]

    Adaptive-rag: Learning to adapt retrieval-augmented large language models through question complexity

    Soyeong Jeong, Jinheon Baek, Sukmin Cho, Sung Ju Hwang, and Jong C Park. Adaptive-rag: Learning to adapt retrieval-augmented large language models through question complexity. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computation...

    2024

  16. [25]

    Mistral 7b (2023).arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825, 2023

    AQ Jiang, A Sablayrolles, A Mensch, C Bamford, DS Chaplot, D de las Casas, F Bressand, G Lengyel, G Lample, L Saulnier, et al. Mistral 7b (2023).arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer

    Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel S. Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Triviaqa: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension, 2017

    2017

  18. [27]

    Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering, 2020

    Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas O˘guz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen tau Yih. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering, 2020. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2004.04906

    2020 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension

    Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. InProceedings of the 58th Annua...

    2020

  20. [29]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge- intensive nlp tasks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9459–9474, 2020

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge- intensive nlp tasks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems...

    2020

  21. [30]

    Synthetic data generation with large language models for text classification: Potential and limitations, 2023

    Zhuoyan Li, Hangxiao Zhu, Zhuoran Lu, and Ming Yin. Synthetic data generation with large language models for text classification: Potential and limitations, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310. 07849

    2023

  22. [31]

    Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries

    Chin-Yew Lin. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. InText summarization branches out, pages 74–81, 2004

    2004

  23. [32]

    RA-DIT: Retrieval- augmented dual instruction tuning

    Xi Victoria Lin, Xilun Chen, Mingda Chen, Weijia Shi, Maria Lomeli, Richard James, Pedro Rodriguez, Jacob Kahn, Gergely Szilvasy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Wen tau Yih. RA-DIT: Retrieval- augmented dual instruction tuning. InThe 12th International Conference on Learnin...

  24. [33]

    Query rewriting for retrieval-augmented large language models, 2023

    Xinbei Ma, Yeyun Gong, Pengcheng He, Hai Zhao, and Nan Duan. Query rewriting for retrieval-augmented large language models, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14283

    2023 arXiv

  25. [34]

    URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=22OTbutug9

  26. [35]

    Fine-tuning or retrieval? comparing knowledge injection in llms, 2024

    Oded Ovadia, Menachem Brief, Moshik Mishaeli, and Oren Elisha. Fine-tuning or retrieval? comparing knowledge injection in llms, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2312.05934

    2024 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Synthetic data generation using large language models: Advances in text and code, 2025

    Mihai Nadas, Laura Diosan, and Andreea Tomescu. Synthetic data generation using large language models: Advances in text and code, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14023

    2025

  28. [37]

    Replug: Retrieval-augmented black-box language models

    Weijia Shi, Sewon Min, Michihiro Yasunaga, Minjoon Seo, Richard James, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Wen-tau Yih. Replug: Retrieval-augmented black-box language models. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational ...

    2024

  29. [38]

    Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation

    Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. InProceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311–318, 2002. 11

    2002

  30. [39]

    Multihop-rag: Benchmarking retrieval-augmented generation for multi-hop queries, 2024

    Yixuan Tang and Yi Yang. Multihop-rag: Benchmarking retrieval-augmented generation for multi-hop queries, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2401.15391

    2024 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Fine-tune the entire rag architecture (including dpr retriever) for question-answering, 2021

    Shamane Siriwardhana, Rivindu Weerasekera, Elliott Wen, and Suranga Nanayakkara. Fine-tune the entire rag architecture (including dpr retriever) for question-answering, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2106.11517

    2021 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Fei Wang, Xingchen Wan, Ruoxi Sun, Jiefeng Chen, and Sercan Ö. Arık. Astute rag: Overcoming imperfect retrieval augmentation and knowledge conflicts for large language models, 2024. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2410.07176

    2024 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Attention is all you need.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  34. [43]

    Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D

    Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William W. Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D. Manning. Hotpotqa: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. 2018

    2018

  35. [44]

    Towards system 2 reasoning in llms: Learning how to think with meta chain-of-thought,

    Violet Xiang, Charlie Snell, Kanishk Gandhi, Alon Albalak, Anikait Singh, Chase Blagden, Duy Phung, Rafael Rafailov, Nathan Lile, Dakota Mahan, Louis Castricato, Jan-Philipp Franken, Nick Haber, and Chelsea Finn. Towards system 2 reasoning in llms: Learning how to think with m...

  36. [45]

    Limitations

    Tianyi Zhang*, Varsha Kishore*, Felix Wu*, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2020. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=SkeHuCVFDr. A Table of results The full tables o...

    2020

  37. [47]

    Boosting conversational question answering with fine-grained retrieval-augmentation and self-check

    Linhao Ye, Zhikai Lei, Jianghao Yin, Qin Chen, Jie Zhou, and Liang He. Boosting conversational question answering with fine-grained retrieval-augmentation and self-check. InProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Re...

    2024

  38. [49]

    20 • Depending on the country in which research is conducted, IRB approval (or equivalent) may be required for any human subjects research

    Institutional review board (IRB) approvals or equivalent for research with human subjects Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals...

    2025

  39. [2024]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2409.11860

    arXiv

  40. [2025]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2501.04682

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.