Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 6 minor 46 references

Single LLM, Multiple Roles: A Unified Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework Using Role-Specific Token Optimization

T0 review · 6 major / 6 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 RoleRAG claims a single frozen LLM, given only a few trainable role-token embeddings, can perform every sub-task of retrieval-augmented generation and beat dedicated RAG pipelines on five open-domain QA datasets.

desk verdict Plausible modular RAG framework with a useful dataset, but the headline performance claims don't survive contact with Table 2 and the tuning-on-test-set protocol. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15444 v1 pith:L3BTO6SW submitted 2025-05-21 cs.CL cs.AI

Yutao Zhu , Jiajie Jin , Hongjin Qian , Zheng Liu , Zhicheng Dou , Ji-Rong Wen This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords role-specifictokenoptimizationretrieval-augmentedgenerationquerygraphmulti-taskprompttuningopen-domainquestionansweringparameter-efficientfrozenbackboneLLM
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 the separate optimizations scattered across retrieval-augmented generation—query understanding, deciding when to retrieve, summarizing retrieved evidence, following up with new queries, and composing a final answer—can be folded into one frozen LLM. Its RoleRAG framework adds a small set of task-specific role tokens to the vocabulary and tunes only those token embeddings, so the same backbone switches roles by appending a different token. The framework also represents the user's question as a dynamically refinable directed acyclic graph of sub-queries, and it reports exact-match gains of 16%–64% over state-of-the-art RAG baselines on five open-domain QA datasets. If correct, this means a single deployed model can run an entire multi-stage RAG pipeline without fine-tuning the backbone, using only a few hundred thousand added parameters.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the role token: new special tokens appended to the input, whose embeddings are the only trainable parameters while the backbone LLM weights stay frozen. Each module has its own role token, and at inference the token acts as a soft prompt that activates a given capability in the same model instance. The other central piece is the query graph, a directed acyclic graph of sub-queries with placeholders for parent answers; the graph is built first, then resolved node by node, with the retrieval judge deciding whether each node needs external knowledge and the new-query generator adding nodes when the collected answers are insufficient.

What would settle it

A trace-level study would settle it: take a few hundred queries where RoleRAG's final answer is correct and ask annotators to label whether the intermediate query graph, retrieval decisions, and summaries are also correct. If correct final answers frequently ride on wrong intermediate steps, the filtering rule fails; a second check would train the same modules on traces with human-verified intermediate steps and compare final-answer accuracy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

RoleRAG's central claim is that role-specific token optimization is enough to specialize a single frozen LLM for six RAG sub-tasks—query graph builder, retrieval judge, sub-answer generator, summarizer, new query generator, and answer reasoner—and that this outperforms both sequential and iterative RAG pipelines. All training data for these modules is generated by a stronger expert LLM, Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct, and filtered by whether the final answer matches the golden answer; only the embeddings of per-task role tokens are updated. On HotpotQA, MuSiQue, 2WikimultihopQA, Bamboogle, and PopQA, the method reports the best exact-match and F1 scores among all compared methods, including out-of-domain generalization to datasets never seen in training.

Load-bearing premise

The entire training signal is synthetic: traces generated by Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct are kept only when the final answer matches the dataset's golden answer, which assumes that a correct final answer guarantees the intermediate query decompositions, retrieval judgments, and summaries are also correct enough to learn from.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Deploying a RAG system requires only one frozen LLM plus a small set of token embeddings, since role tokens activate different modules without retraining the backbone.
  • New RAG sub-tasks can be appended by adding another role token and collecting task-specific data, without disturbing the already-trained modules.
  • Complex multi-hop questions benefit from a dynamic query graph: the retrieval judge prunes nodes that need no retrieval and the new-query generator adds missing nodes, so retrieval cost drops while accuracy rises.
  • Because the training signal is generated automatically from an expert LLM, the framework can be scaled to additional datasets without human annotation of intermediate steps.
  • Out-of-domain results on Bamboogle and PopQA suggest that the learned role tokens transfer to QA datasets not used in training.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's scope: role-token tuning could extend to other multi-stage LLM workflows, such as agent loops, tool use, or multi-step coding, where a frozen model switches skills by token alone; the paper does not test this.
  • The fixed six-step workflow may be brittle for tasks that require different module orders or repeated back-and-forth between retrieval and reasoning; the paper's own limitations section notes that the sequence is predefined.
  • A direct comparison against parameter-efficient alternatives such as LoRA or standard soft-prompt tuning would clarify whether the gains come specifically from role tokens or from any task-specific tuning; the paper does not include such an ablation.
  • The synthetic-data filtering scheme implies a cheap way to bootstrap domain-specific RAG pipelines from a stronger teacher model, but it also predicts that as teacher quality drops, RoleRAG's advantage should shrink; this could be tested by ablating with weaker teacher models.
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

6 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes RoleRAG, a unified retrieval-augmented generation framework in which six modules (query graph builder, retrieval judge, sub-answer generator, summarizer, new query generator, answer reasoner) share a single frozen backbone LLM and are specialized by training only newly added role-token embeddings. Training data for all modules is generated by Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct, filtered by a threshold on final-answer quality against the dataset golden answers. The method also introduces a dynamic query graph for query decomposition. Experiments on HotpotQA, MuSiQue, 2WikiMultihopQA, Bamboogle, and PopQA are reported, and the abstract claims 16%–64% exact-match improvements over state-of-the-art RAG baselines. The paper additionally releases a dataset for training RAG modules.

Significance. If the empirical claims were supported, the paper would make a useful contribution: role-specific token optimization is parameter-efficient (about 0.1M trainable parameters for 30 role tokens), preserves the backbone LLM's general abilities, and offers a modular yet deployment-friendly way to improve RAG. The dynamic query graph is a sensible design for multi-hop questions, and the released dataset could be a resource for the community. However, the central evidence as presented is not sufficient: the headline improvement range does not match the reported tables, there is no statistical validation, and key hyperparameters appear to be selected on evaluation sets. The idea is promising, but the manuscript in its current form does not establish the stated superiority over existing methods.

major comments (6)
  1. [Abstract, §1, Table 2] The claimed 16%–64% EM improvement over state-of-the-art RAG methods is not supported by Table 2. Computing relative EM gains over the best baseline per dataset gives roughly 7% on HotpotQA (37.40 vs. 34.90), 50% on MuSiQue (18.20 vs. 12.10), 46% on 2WikiMultihopQA (47.00 vs. 32.20), 34% on Bamboogle (44.00 vs. 32.80), and only 2.7% on PopQA (33.70 vs. 32.80). The lower bound of the claimed range is thus off by roughly a factor of six, and PopQA, a key generalization dataset, shows a 0.9-point EM margin. The abstract and introduction need to be corrected to report the actual observed margins, or the claim must be re-derived with a clearly defined baseline set.
  2. [§4.3, Table 2] All results appear to be single runs with no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The statement that RoleRAG 'significantly outperforms' all baselines is therefore not justified by the data. This is especially problematic for PopQA, where the EM margin over RetRobust is 0.9 points. The authors should report at least three independent runs with variance, or use a paired bootstrap or per-question significance test, to support the comparative claims.
  3. [§4.4, Figure 4, Table 5] Key hyperparameters appear to be selected on the evaluation sets. Figure 4 sweeps the number of role tokens and reports that 'optimal results occurring when 30-40 tokens are used', varying per dataset. Table 5 sweeps the number of retrieved passages per sub-query, and the main Table 2 results seem to use the deepest setting (RoleRAG-5, 11.35 passages per query on HotpotQA, compared with 7.35 for RQ-RAG). Selecting hyperparameters that maximize test-set performance inflates the reported gains. Please specify a held-out validation split, report the chosen hyperparameters before evaluation, and describe the selection procedure.
  4. [Table 2 vs. Table 5] There is an internal inconsistency in the reported results. Table 2 gives RoleRAG an F1 of 49.17 on HotpotQA, whereas Table 5 gives RoleRAG-5, which appears to be the same configuration, an F1 of 51.03 on HotpotQA. If Table 5 uses a different retriever, different passage set, or different number of retrieved passages than Table 2, that must be stated explicitly; otherwise the main results are not reproducible.
  5. [§3.2, Data Collection] The training-data filtering threshold α is never reported, and the supervision for all intermediate modules comes from a single expert LLM (Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct) filtered only by final-answer score. The paper assumes that a correct final answer is a valid proxy for the correctness of every intermediate step, but if the expert reaches the correct answer through an incorrect path, the distilled modules will learn flawed behavior. Please report α and its sensitivity, and provide at least a sample-based human or rule-based verification of the intermediate outputs.
  6. [Table 3, Ablation Study] The ablation results do not support the claim that all modules positively contribute. Removing the retrieval judge improves both EM and F1 on HotpotQA (38.40/50.31 vs. 37.40/49.17) and on MuSiQue (18.50/27.58 vs. 18.20/27.30). The text acknowledges a retrieval-cost trade-off, but the table shows the full model is not the best configuration on the reported quality metrics. This needs a clear explanation, including whether the retrieval-judge removal variant uses the same number of retrieved passages and whether the cost savings justify the reported quality differences.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1, Table 1] The module is called 'Answer Generator' in the text of Section 3.1 but 'Sub-answer Generator' in Table 1 and Figure 2; please use a consistent name throughout.
  2. [Appendix G] The query-rewrite analysis reports mixed results and the module is excluded from the final framework. It would be clearer to state this design decision in the main text, since readers may otherwise wonder why query rewriting, a common RAG component, is absent.
  3. [Appendix F, Case Study] In the first case study, the summary for Q1 states 'Scott Robertson is an American concept artist' even though the sub-question asks about Scott Derrickson. This appears to be an erroneous summary, which contradicts the example's presentation as a successful execution and should be corrected or discussed.
  4. [§4.2, Table 2] The baseline name is spelled 'BlenderFilter' in Section 4.2 but 'BlendFilter' in Table 2; please ensure all baseline names match the cited publications.
  5. [Table 4] The statement that Llama-70B is applied with few-shot examples while the other backbones are fine-tuned needs clarification. As written, the model-size comparison confounds model size with training protocol.
  6. [§2, Contributions] The claim that the released dataset is 'the first dataset covering the entire pipeline of a RAG system' should be supported by comparisons with existing RAG training resources or softened, since several prior works provide multi-stage RAG supervision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the empirical pipeline is trained and evaluated on external benchmarks; the self-citations are not load-bearing and no claimed result reduces to its own inputs by construction.

full rationale

RoleRAG is an empirical systems paper and does not present a formal derivation from first principles, so the circularity burden is low. The core method trains only newly added role-token embeddings with a standard next-token prediction objective while keeping the backbone frozen, and the resulting modules are evaluated on held-out test or development splits of five public QA benchmarks against eleven external baselines. No equation in the paper defines a predicted quantity in terms of the fitted parameters by construction, and no uniqueness theorem or prior result by the same authors is invoked to force the framework's design. The self-citations present (FlashRAG, BIDER, and Tan et al. on retrieval necessity) are used as tooling and related-work context, not as load-bearing evidence for the central effectiveness claim; the retrieval-necessity design is also supported by the external citation to Yoran et al. The expert-LLM data-generation procedure, which filters training samples by final-answer exact-match or F1 score, is a training-data quality heuristic rather than a self-definitional prediction; the unreported threshold alpha is a reporting weakness but not circularity. The Limitations section openly acknowledges the fixed workflow and efficiency overhead, and Appendix G reports an honest negative result for query rewriting. Concerns about missing error bars, single runs, and hyperparameters apparently selected on evaluation sets are statistical validity and reproducibility issues, which fall under correctness risk rather than circularity under the stated rules. Because no specific reduction of a claimed result to its own inputs can be exhibited, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the expert-LLM data generation and filtering, the module decomposition, and the role-token training objective. These are design choices, not standard mathematical axioms; no independent evidence is provided for the intermediate annotation quality. No new physical entities are introduced; role tokens are trainable embeddings, not independent entities.

free parameters (3)
  • Data filtering threshold alpha = Not reported
    Section 3.2: samples retained only when expert final answer score s = g(A, A_hat) exceeds threshold alpha. The value of alpha is not given, and it controls the size and quality of the training data for all six modules.
  • Number of role tokens per task = 30 (best); 50 causes overfitting
    Section 4.4 and Figure 4: the number of task-specific tokens is varied on the test datasets and 30-40 selected as optimal; this is tuning on the evaluation sets.
  • Number of retrieved passages per sub-query = Unclear for main results
    Table 5 varies passages per sub-query from 1 to 5, but Table 2's default is not stated; Table 2 HotpotQA F1 49.17 does not match any RoleRAG-x in Table 5.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The six module decomposition (query graph builder, retrieval judge, sub-answer generator, summarizer, new query generator, answer reasoner) is an appropriate and sufficient decomposition of the RAG process.
    Section 3.1: the framework's design assumes these six sub-tasks cover the RAG pipeline; if some critical sub-task is missing or mis-specified, the framework's effectiveness is undermined.
  • domain assumption Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct can generate high-quality intermediate annotations with the provided prompts, and filtering by final answer quality is a valid proxy for intermediate annotation quality.
    Section 3.2: all training data is auto-generated by the expert LLM and filtered by s=g(A, A_hat) >= alpha; the correctness of the intermediate labels is not verified directly.
  • domain assumption The query DAG follows a Markov assumption: each sub-query's resolution depends only on parent node answers, allowing the final node to be resolved after all preceding nodes.
    Section 3.1: 'This DAG structure ensures that the reasoning plan follows the Markov assumption'; if complex questions require non-Markov dependencies, the graph may over-constrain.
  • domain assumption The retriever (E5-base-v2) over the Wikipedia corpus provides sufficient evidence for all sub-queries.
    Section 4.2 and Appendix D: retrieval corpus and retriever are fixed; the case study in Appendix F shows retrieval failure can cause wrong final answers.
  • domain assumption Standard next-token prediction objective with frozen backbone and tuned role-token embeddings is sufficient to make each module specialize without interfering.
    Section 3.3, Eq. (1): the training objective assumes role tokens can modulate the frozen LLM's behavior per task; no analysis of cross-task interference is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Single LLM, Multiple Roles: A Unified Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework Using Role-Specific Token Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L3BTO6SW

@misc{pith2026250515444,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Single LLM, Multiple Roles: A Unified Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework Using Role-Specific Token Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L3BTO6SW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15444}
}
read the original abstract

Existing studies have optimized retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) across various sub-tasks, such as query understanding and retrieval refinement, but integrating these optimizations into a unified framework remains challenging. To tackle this problem, this work proposes RoleRAG, a unified RAG framework that achieves efficient multi-task processing through role-specific token optimization. RoleRAG comprises six modules, each handling a specific sub-task within the RAG process. Additionally, we introduce a query graph to represent the decomposition of the query, which can be dynamically resolved according to the decomposing state. All modules are driven by the same underlying LLM, distinguished by task-specific role tokens that are individually optimized. This design allows RoleRAG to dynamically activate different modules within a single LLM instance, thereby streamlining deployment and reducing resource consumption. Experimental results on five open-domain question-answering datasets demonstrate the effectiveness, generalizability, and flexibility of our framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15444 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between existing studies and our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The illustration of our RoleRAG framework, which contains three main steps: (1) query graph building, (2) sub-query execution, and (3) final answer reasoning. Query understanding aims at inferring the intent of a user query, which is a critical component in a retrieval system (Arens et al., 1996; Azad and Deepak, 2019; Ma et al., 2023). It involves a se￾ries of techniques such as query classification, ex￾pansion, re… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the training and inference pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance with various numbers of tokens. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance of various models on questions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Prompt using for generating data for query graph builder. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Prompt using for generating data for retrieval judge. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Prompt using for generating data for sub-answer generator. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Prompt using for generating data for summarizer. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Prompt using for generating data for new query generator. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Prompt using for generating data for answer reasoner. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: An example of RoleRAG execution process from HotpotQA. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: An example of RoleRAG execution process from MuSiQue. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Knoblock, and Wei - Min Shen

    Yigal Arens, Craig A. Knoblock, and Wei - Min Shen. 1996. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122124 Query reformulation for dynamic information integration . J. Intell. Inf. Syst., 6(2/3):99--130

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00122124 1996

  2. [2]

    Akari Asai, Zeqiu Wu, Yizhong Wang, Avirup Sil, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=hSyW5go0v8 Self-rag: Learning to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024 . OpenReview.net

    2024

  3. [3]

    Hiteshwar Kumar Azad and Akshay Deepak. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IPM.2019.05.009 Query expansion techniques for information retrieval: A survey . Inf. Process. Manag., 56(5):1698--1735

    doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2019.05.009 2019

  4. [4]

    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 - Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litw...

    2020

  5. [5]

    Claudio Carpineto and Giovanni Romano. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1145/2071389.2071390 A survey of automatic query expansion in information retrieval . ACM Comput. Surv. , 44(1):1:1--1:50

    arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    Chi - Min Chan, Chunpu Xu, Ruibin Yuan, Hongyin Luo, Wei Xue, Yike Guo, and Jie Fu. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2404.00610 RQ-RAG: learning to refine queries for retrieval augmented generation . CoRR, abs/2404.00610

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.00610 2024

  7. [7]

    Zehui Chen, Kuikun Liu, Qiuchen Wang, Jiangning Liu, Wenwei Zhang, Kai Chen, and Feng Zhao. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2407.20183 Mindsearch: Mimicking human minds elicits deep AI searcher . CoRR, abs/2407.20183

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.20183 2024

  8. [8]

    Zhang, Han Bao, Hanwei Xu, Haocheng Wang, Haowei Zhang, Honghui Ding, Huajian Xin, Huazuo Gao, Hui Li, Hui Qu, J

    DeepSeek - AI, Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, Damai Dai, Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Deli Chen, Dongjie Ji, Erhang Li, Fangyun Lin, Fucong Dai, Fuli Luo, Guangbo Hao, Guanting Chen, Guowei Li, H. Zhang, Han Bao, Hanwei Xu, Haocheng Wang, Haowei Zhang, Honghui Ding, Hu...

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.19437 2024

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al - Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, Anirudh Goyal, Anthony Hartshorn, Aobo Yang, Archi Mitra, Archie Sravankumar, Artem Korenev, Arthur Hinsvark, Arun Rao, Aston Z...

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Jinyuan Fang, Zaiqiao Meng, and Craig Macdonald. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2406.11460 TRACE the evidence: Constructing knowledge-grounded reasoning chains for retrieval-augmented generation . CoRR, abs/2406.11460

    2024 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    Xanh Ho, Anh - Khoa Duong Nguyen, Saku Sugawara, and Akiko Aizawa. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2020.COLING-MAIN.580 Constructing A multi-hop QA dataset for comprehensive evaluation of reasoning steps . In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational ...

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Soyeong Jeong, Jinheon Baek, Sukmin Cho, Sung Ju Hwang, and Jong Park. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2024.NAACL-LONG.389 Adaptive-rag: Learning to adapt retrieval-augmented large language models through question complexity . In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the Nor...

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Huiqiang Jiang, Qianhui Wu, Chin - Yew Lin, Yuqing Yang, and Lili Qiu. 2023 a . https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2023.EMNLP-MAIN.825 Llmlingua: Compressing prompts for accelerated inference of large language models . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat...

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Xu, Luyu Gao, Zhiqing Sun, Qian Liu, Jane Dwivedi - Yu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig

    Zhengbao Jiang, Frank F. Xu, Luyu Gao, Zhiqing Sun, Qian Liu, Jane Dwivedi - Yu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig. 2023 b . https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2023.EMNLP-MAIN.495 Active retrieval augmented generation . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Me...

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Jiajie Jin, Yutao Zhu, Xinyu Yang, Chenghao Zhang, and Zhicheng Dou. 2024 a . https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.13576 Flashrag: A modular toolkit for efficient retrieval-augmented generation research . CoRR, abs/2405.13576

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Jiajie Jin, Yutao Zhu, Yujia Zhou, and Zhicheng Dou. 2024 b . https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2402.12174 BIDER: bridging knowledge inconsistency for efficient retrieval-augmented llms via key supporting evidence . CoRR, abs/2402.12174

    2024 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    Dongkyu Kim, Byoungwook Kim, Donggeon Han, and Matous Eibich. 2024 a . https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2410.20878 Autorag: Automated framework for optimization of retrieval augmented generation pipeline . CoRR, abs/2410.20878

    2024 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Jaehyung Kim, Jaehyun Nam, Sangwoo Mo, Jongjin Park, Sang - Woo Lee, Minjoon Seo, Jung - Woo Ha, and Jinwoo Shin. 2024 b . https://openreview.net/forum?id=w4DW6qkRmt Sure: Summarizing retrievals using answer candidates for open-domain QA of llms . In The Twelfth International ...

    2024

  11. [19]

    u ttler, Mike Lewis, Wen - tau Yih, Tim Rockt \

    Patrick S. H. Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich K \" u ttler, Mike Lewis, Wen - tau Yih, Tim Rockt \" a schel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/hash/6b493230205f780e...

    2020

  12. [20]

    Xinbei Ma, Yeyun Gong, Pengcheng He, Hai Zhao, and Nan Duan. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.322 Query rewriting in retrieval-augmented large language models . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 53...

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2023.ACL-LONG.546 When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness of parametric and non-parametric memories . In Proceedings of the 6...

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Shengyu Mao, Yong Jiang, Boli Chen, Xiao Li, Peng Wang, Xinyu Wang, Pengjun Xie, Fei Huang, Huajun Chen, and Ningyu Zhang. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.findings-emnlp.49 Rafe: Ranking feedback improves query rewriting for RAG . In Findings of the Association for Computa...

    2024

  15. [23]

    OpenAI. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774 GPT-4 technical report . CoRR, abs/2303.08774

    2023 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fang, Junjie Bai, and Soumith Chintala

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas K \" o pf, Edward Z. Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Stei...

    2019

  17. [25]

    Fabio Petroni, Aleksandra Piktus, Angela Fan, Patrick S. H. Lewis, Majid Yazdani, Nicola De Cao, James Thorne, Yacine Jernite, Vladimir Karpukhin, Jean Maillard, Vassilis Plachouras, Tim Rockt \" a schel, and Sebastian Riedel. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2021.NAACL-MAIN....

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    Smith, and Mike Lewis

    Ofir Press, Muru Zhang, Sewon Min, Ludwig Schmidt, Noah A. Smith, and Mike Lewis. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2023.FINDINGS-EMNLP.378 Measuring and narrowing the compositionality gap in language models . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP...

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yelong Shen, Minlie Huang, Nan Duan, and Weizhu Chen. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2023.FINDINGS-EMNLP.620 Enhancing retrieval-augmented large language models with iterative retrieval-generation synergy . In Findings of the Association for Comput...

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Weijia Shi, Sewon Min, Michihiro Yasunaga, Minjoon Seo, Richard James, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Wen - tau Yih. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2024.NAACL-LONG.463 REPLUG: retrieval-augmented black-box language models . In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the No...

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Jiejun Tan, Zhicheng Dou, Yutao Zhu, Peidong Guo, Kun Fang, and Ji - Rong Wen. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2024.ACL-LONG.242 Small models, big insights: Leveraging slim proxy models to decide when and what to retrieve for llms . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting ...

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1162/TACL\_A\_00475 Musique: Multihop questions via single-hop question composition . Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, 10:539--554

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2023.ACL-LONG.557 Interleaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step questions . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of th...

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Francis Song, Noah Y

    Jonathan Uesato, Nate Kushman, Ramana Kumar, H. Francis Song, Noah Y. Siegel, Lisa Wang, Antonia Creswell, Geoffrey Irving, and Irina Higgins. 2022. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2211.14275 Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback . CoRR, abs/2211.14275

    2022 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    Prakhar Verma, Sukruta Prakash Midigeshi, Gaurav Sinha, Arno Solin, Nagarajan Natarajan, and Amit Sharma. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2410.20753 Planxrag: Planning-guided retrieval augmented generation . CoRR, abs/2410.20753

    2024 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    Haoyu Wang, Ruirui Li, Haoming Jiang, Jinjin Tian, Zhengyang Wang, Chen Luo, Xianfeng Tang, Monica Xiao Cheng, Tuo Zhao, and Jing Gao. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.emnlp-main.58 Blendfilter: Advancing retrieval-augmented large language models via query generation blendi...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Liang Wang, Nan Yang, Xiaolong Huang, Binxing Jiao, Linjun Yang, Daxin Jiang, Rangan Majumder, and Furu Wei. 2022. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2212.03533 Text embeddings by weakly-supervised contrastive pre-training . CoRR, abs/2212.03533

    2022 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    Yile Wang, Peng Li, Maosong Sun, and Yang Liu. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2023.FINDINGS-EMNLP.691 Self-knowledge guided retrieval augmentation for large language models . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, Singapore, December 6-10,...

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Fangyuan Xu, Weijia Shi, and Eunsol Choi. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=mlJLVigNHp RECOMP: improving retrieval-augmented lms with context compression and selective augmentation . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Au...

    2024

  30. [38]

    Bruce Croft

    Jinxi Xu and W. Bruce Croft. 1996. https://doi.org/10.1145/243199.243202 Query expansion using local and global document analysis . In Proceedings of the 19th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR'96, August 18-22...

    1996

  31. [39]

    Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D

    Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William W. Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D. Manning. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/D18-1259 Hotpotqa: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference...

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    Ori Yoran, Tomer Wolfson, Ori Ram, and Jonathan Berant. 2024 a . https://openreview.net/forum?id=ZS4m74kZpH Making retrieval-augmented language models robust to irrelevant context . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria...

    2024

  33. [41]

    Ori Yoran, Tomer Wolfson, Ori Ram, and Jonathan Berant. 2024 b . https://openreview.net/forum?id=ZS4m74kZpH Making retrieval-augmented language models robust to irrelevant context . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria...

    2024

  34. [42]

    Fei Yu, Anningzhe Gao, and Benyou Wang. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2024.FINDINGS-NAACL.55 Ovm, outcome-supervised value models for planning in mathematical reasoning . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024, Mexico City, Mexico, June 16...

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    Xuanwang Zhang, Yunze Song, Yidong Wang, Shuyun Tang, Xinfeng Li, Zhengran Zeng, Zhen Wu, Wei Ye, Wenyuan Xu, Yue Zhang, Xinyu Dai, Shikun Zhang, and Qingsong Wen. 2024 a . https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2408.11381 RAGLAB: A modular and research-oriented unified framework for ...

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    Zhen Zhang, Xinyu Wang, Yong Jiang, Zhuo Chen, Feiteng Mu, Mengting Hu, Pengjun Xie, and Fei Huang. 2024 b . https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2411.06207 Exploring knowledge boundaries in large language models for retrieval judgment . CoRR, abs/2411.06207

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  38. [46]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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