Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 71 references

Magic Mushroom: A Customizable Benchmark for Fine-grained Analysis of Retrieval Noise Erosion in RAG Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 This paper introduces Magic Mushroom, a customizable retrieval-noise benchmark, and shows that RAG answer accuracy degrades non-linearly with noise, collapsing sharply once noise passes 50%.

desk verdict The benchmark artifact is solid and worth refereeing, but the '50% noise collapse threshold' is a protocol-dependent point estimate, not an established universal property of RAG. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03901 v2 pith:JG62YXHF submitted 2025-06-04 cs.CL

Yuxin Zhang , Yan Wang , Yongrui Chen , Shenyu Zhang , Xinbang Dai , Sheng Bi , Guilin Qi This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords retrieval-augmentedgenerationretrievalnoisebenchmarkrobustnessquestionansweringtaxonomydenoisingstrategieserosion
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 claims that retrieval-augmented generation systems are far more fragile to retrieval noise than coarse evaluations suggest, and that the exact composition of noise matters as much as how much noise is present. To make this measurable, it introduces Magic Mushroom, a benchmark built from existing question-answering datasets, in which every question is paired with golden documents and four deliberately constructed types of noisy documents. The benchmark lets researchers dial in arbitrary noise ratios and type mixtures, and the paper uses that flexibility to show that answer correctness degrades non-linearly, with a sharp avalanche-style collapse at a 50% noise ratio. A sympathetic reader would care because this offers a more realistic and controllable testbed for deciding which generators and denoising strategies actually survive noisy retrieval in practice.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the benchmark itself: a controlled sampling protocol in which, for each QA pair, a fixed pool of 10 golden documents plus 10 distracting, 7 low-quality, 7 inconsequential, and 7 irrelevant noise documents is constructed, and researchers sample k=10 retrieved documents at any desired noise ratio and type mixture. This protocol is what enables the fine-grained measurements of noise erosion, the per-noise-type ablation curves, the position and length sensitivity analyses, the synthetic scenario-level distributions, and the attention-tracking case studies.

What would settle it

A concrete check would be to collect naturally retrieved documents from actual sparse and dense retrievers over a large open-domain corpus, categorize them into the paper's four noise types by human annotators, and measure whether human-categorized noise reproduces the same per-noise-type harm ordering and the 50% collapse point observed with the benchmark's synthetic documents.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Magic Mushroom provides a flexible, fine-grained testbed that reveals RAG systems are highly sensitive to retrieval noise in a way that depends on both noise proportion and noise type. The paper defines four noise categories—Distracting, Low Quality, Inconsequential, and Irrelevant—to capture the heterogeneity of real retrieval noise, constructs 7,468 single-hop and 3,925 multi-hop question-answer instances with configurable noise documents, and evaluates multiple LLM generators and classic denoising strategies across noise ratios from 0% to 100%. The main experimental findings are that correctness degrades non-linearly across all RAG variants, with a critical threshold near 50% noise beyond which performance deteriorates rapidly; that distracting noise is by far the most harmful type, while irrelevant noise is the mildest; that noise composition strongly determines which generator-denoiser combination is best, with observed performance gaps up to 21.4% between scenarios that share the same golden-document proportion; and that noise misleads generators by shifting their attention toward deceptive documents.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that GPT-4-generated noise documents and the four-category taxonomy (Distracting, Low Quality, Inconsequential, Irrelevant) faithfully represent the heterogeneous noise distributions that occur in real retrieval systems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Robustness conclusions drawn from a single fixed noise level can be misleading, because correctness curves are strongly non-linear and the ordering of systems changes across noise ratios.
  • Denoising strategies that aggressively question retrieved content, such as SKR and DRAGIN, protect against high noise but depress correctness in clean or lightly noisy settings, whereas CHAINOFNOTE keeps relatively stable performance at low-to-medium noise but suffers at complete noise.
  • Distracting noise is qualitatively different from irrelevant noise: even a 10% distracting-noise ratio can cut correctness dramatically, so evaluations that treat all noise as one category will hide the most dangerous failure mode.
  • Reranking golden documents closer to the query can help generators that exhibit a 'lost in the middle' effect, but reranking may amplify the harm of distracting and inconsequential noise.
  • Model scaling provides only limited gains under low noise but substantially improves robustness under high retrieval noise, and smaller generators tend to hallucinate more as noise rises.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If real-world retrieval noise has a different category mixture than the four synthetic scenarios constructed here, the reported ordering of generator-denoiser combinations may not transfer directly; the benchmark's value is that it lets users build scenario-specific mixtures rather than assuming one fixed distribution.
  • The 50% avalanche threshold may be tied to the particular difficulty of GPT-4-generated distracting documents; a direct test with human-written or naturally retrieved distractor passages would show whether the threshold is a property of RAG systems or of the benchmark's noise generation procedure.
  • The observed attention-shift mechanism suggests a practical diagnostic: monitoring layer-wise attention allocated to each retrieved document could serve as an early warning that a generator is about to be captured by deceptive noise, potentially enabling dynamic intervention during generation.
  • Because the paper explicitly limits the benchmark to English, an immediate testable extension is to replicate the noise-ratio and noise-type curves on multilingual question-answer pairs to see whether the 50% collapse and the per-type harm ordering are language-general.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. Magic Mushroom is a benchmark for studying how retrieval noise degrades RAG systems. The paper defines four noise types (Distracting, Low Quality, Inconsequential, Irrelevant), builds 7,468 single-hop and 3,925 multi-hop QA pairs from NQ and HotpotQA with golden and noisy candidate documents, and allows flexible noise-ratio and noise-type configurations. Experiments on multiple LLM generators and five denoising strategies report monotone but nonlinear performance degradation, a 'critical threshold' at 50% noise, noise-type-specific effects, position and length sensitivity, scenario-dependent rankings, and attention-based evidence of distraction. The authors position the benchmark as a customizable tool for evaluating and improving noise-robust RAG systems.

Significance. The benchmark fills a real gap: existing noise benchmarks use fixed, coarse noise types, whereas Magic Mushroom offers controlled, configurable mixtures and a comparatively large, human-verified corpus. The paper is transparent about construction (full prompts, annotation rules, public/private splits) and validates the GPT-4 correctness judge against human annotations on 200 instances per noise ratio. If the headline quantitative claims were supported, the benchmark would be a solid resource for RAG robustness research. The main weakness is that the most striking claims—especially the 50% collapse threshold and scenario sensitivity—are not yet supported with uncertainty quantification or protocol controls, and the realism of the noise taxonomy is asserted rather than demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, Appendix F.1] The headline claim of a critical threshold at a 50% noise ratio is not established by the reported evidence. Table 1 gives one point estimate per condition, and although Appendix E says results are averaged over three runs, no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported. The threshold is also confounded with the fixed k=10 protocol: at 50% noise the context contains exactly five golden documents, and at 70% only three, so the sharp drop between these conditions may reflect the absolute golden-document count rather than a general noise-ratio threshold. This interpretation is reinforced by the paper's own §4.4, where individual noise types move the steep-degradation point to roughly 90% noise (one golden document at k=8). To support the claim, the authors should report dispersion, vary k while matching golden-document counts, or explicitly reframe the threshold as protocol-dependent.
  2. [§3.3, §4.6, Appendix A] The realism of the noise taxonomy and of the scenario-level conclusions is asserted rather than validated. The noisy documents are generated by GPT-4, and the SCE.1–SCE.4 distributions in §4.6 are hand-designed from coarse aggregate statistics rather than sampled from the retriever- and domain-dependent distributions documented in Appendix A. Because the paper motivates the benchmark by the heterogeneity of real-world retrieval noise, the scenario results in Table 3 should be checked against actual retrieval outputs, or at least accompanied by a sensitivity analysis over scenario definitions. Without such validation, the claim that optimal generator-denoiser configurations vary unpredictably across scenarios may be an artifact of the four hand-picked distributions.
  3. [Appendix E, Table 3] Several comparative conclusions rest on point estimates without uncertainty. For example, Table 3 reports a maximum performance delta of 21.4% between SCE.3 and SCE.4 for a fixed configuration and concludes that there is no predictable relationship between noise composition and optimal configuration; with only three averaged runs and no confidence intervals or paired tests, a 21.4% delta could be within sampling noise. The same issue affects model-ordering and denoising-strategy comparisons throughout §4.3. I request error bars or significance tests for at least the headline comparisons that support the paper's conclusions.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§4.3] The phrase '42.55% correctness drop' should be '42.55 percentage-point drop' (Table 1: VanillaRAG 84.1 vs SKR 41.5); the current wording is ambiguous.
  2. [§4.3] 'DRGIN' is a typo for 'DRAGIN'.
  3. [§4.4] 'Qwen-2.58B' appears twice and should be 'Qwen-2.57B' to match the setup in Table 1.
  4. [Appendix B] In the Multi-Hop Distracting Noise prompt, the example outputs have unbalanced quotation marks (e.g., 'The Radio station stopped playing Regional music., missing a closing quote).
  5. [Abstract and §1] The dataset link is a Google Drive URL; a persistent DOI or versioned repository would improve archival reproducibility.
  6. [References] References [20] and [21] are duplicate entries for the same RAG paper and should be merged.
  7. [§3.3, Appendix D] GPT-4 is used both to generate noise documents and to judge correctness; the human-alignment check in Appendix D is reassuring at the aggregate level, but a brief discussion of potential systematic bias from this shared origin would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the benchmark measurements are direct empirical evaluations with no fitted parameters or self-citations; the '50% threshold' claim is a measurable outcome, not an input.

full rationale

Magic Mushroom is an evaluation benchmark. Its construction defines four noise types and generates document exemplars via GPT-4, but the reported results are direct measurements of LLM accuracy and rejection rates under controlled noise conditions. The key findings (non-linear degradation, 50% collapse threshold, noise-type sensitivity, position and length effects) are contingent empirical observations, not mathematical consequences of the construction. There are no equations that define the output in terms of fitted constants, no self-citations, and no parameter fitted to a subset and then 'predicted' on the same or overlapping data. The use of GPT-4 both to generate noise and to judge correctness is a potential methodological confound, but it does not make the measured predictions equivalent to the benchmark inputs; the benchmark's realism claim may be questioned on external-validity grounds, but that is a correctness/rigor concern, not circularity.

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

The paper is empirical; no fitted parameters or invented entities. The central claims rest on domain assumptions about the taxonomy's validity, the representativeness of GPT-4-generated noise, and the reliability of LLM-based evaluation.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The four noise taxonomy categories (Distracting, Low Quality, Inconsequential, Irrelevant) are mutually exclusive and jointly cover realistic retrieval noise.
    The benchmark and all analyses rely on this taxonomy (Section 2). The boundaries are not empirically validated beyond qualitative rationale.
  • domain assumption GPT-4-generated noise documents faithfully represent real retrieval noise distributions.
    The noise documents are synthesized with GPT-4 (Section 3.3); if these differ systematically from real noise, the benchmark's realism claim is weakened.
  • domain assumption GPT-4-based correctness scoring aligns with human judgment.
    Evaluation relies on GPT-4 scores (Section 4.2); alignment is checked on 200 sampled instances per noise ratio (Appendix D.2), not on the full set.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magic Mushroom: A Customizable Benchmark for Fine-grained Analysis of Retrieval Noise Erosion in RAG Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JG62YXHF

@misc{pith2026250603901,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magic Mushroom: A Customizable Benchmark for Fine-grained Analysis of Retrieval Noise Erosion in RAG Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JG62YXHF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03901}
}
read the original abstract

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems enhance Large Language Models (LLMs) by incorporating external retrieved information, mitigating issues such as hallucination and outdated knowledge. However, RAG systems are highly sensitive to retrieval noise prevalent in real-world scenarios. Existing benchmarks fail to emulate the complex and heterogeneous noise distributions encountered in real-world retrieval environments, undermining reliable robustness assessment. In this paper, we define four categories of retrieval noise based on linguistic properties and noise characteristics, aiming to reflect the heterogeneity of noise in real-world scenarios. Building on this, we introduce Magic Mushroom, a benchmark for replicating "magic mushroom" noise: contexts that appear relevant on the surface but covertly mislead RAG systems. Magic Mushroom comprises 7,468 single-hop and 3,925 multi-hop question-answer pairs. More importantly, Magic Mushroom enables researchers to flexibly configure combinations of retrieval noise according to specific research objectives or application scenarios, allowing for highly controlled evaluation setups. We evaluate LLM generators of varying parameter scales and classic RAG denoising strategies under diverse noise distributions to investigate their performance dynamics during progressive noise encroachment. Our analysis reveals that both generators and denoising strategies have significant room for improvement and exhibit extreme sensitivity to noise distributions. Magic Mushroom emerges as a promising tool for evaluating and advancing noise-robust RAG systems, accelerating their widespread deployment in real-world applications. The Magic Mushroom benchmark is available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aP5kyPuk4L-L_uoI6T9UhxuTyt8oMqjT/view?usp=sharing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03901 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Misleading effect of noise on response generation by LLMs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the Magic Mushroom benchmark construction process. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Impact of different types of retrieval noise on RAG system performance, using Llama-3.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (25 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sensitivity of RAG system performance to the position of retrieved documents, using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sensitivity of RAG system performance to the length of retrieved documents, using Llama [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Layer-wise attention distribution of Llama-3.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Domain-wise distribution of retrieved document types as the number of retrieved passages [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Schematic diagram illustrating the rationale for retrieval noise taxonomy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Prompt for golden document augmentation in the single-hop dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Prompt for distracting noise introduction in the single-hop dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Prompt for low quality noise introduction in the single-hop dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Prompt for golden document augmentation in the multi-hop dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Prompt for distracting noise introduction in the multi-hop dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Prompt for low quality noise introduction in the multi-hop dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: presents the inference prompt used in the experiment without employing RAG, where no external documents are incorporated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Inference Prompt of VANILLARAG 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Inference Prompt of CHAINOFNOTE SKR - Retrieval Check Prompt Task Description: Do you need additional information to answer this question? If you need, please answer: “Yes, I need.” If you don’t need, please answer: “No, I don’t need.” Do not answer questions and expl…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Prompt to check whether LLM can solve the question without retrieval document in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Topical distribution of QA instances in Magic Mushroom, with block area and percentage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Retrieval document length distributions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Prompt for the Evaluation of Correctness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Comparison of alignment scores between human and GPT-4. To validate the alignment between LLM-based automatic evaluation and human judgment, we conduct an align￾ment analysis on the performance of VANILLARAG + LLama-3.18B at different noise ratios. We randomly sam￾ple…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Rejection rates of RAG systems under different types of retrieval noise, with Llama-3.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Sensitivity of RAG system rejection rates to the position of retrieved documents, using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Layer-wise attention distribution of Llama-3.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: The impact of distracting noise on RAG The Impact of Inconsequential Noise Question: When were catholic churches allowed back in England? Correct Answer: 1850 Doc 1: (Golden Document) The Catholic Church in England faced severe persecution after the 1559 settlement ..…
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: The impact of inconsequential noise on RAG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_27.png]
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: The impact of low quality noise on RAG 29 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_28.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Retrievalsum: A retrieval enhanced framework for abstractive summarization.CoRR, abs/2109.07943, 2021

    Chenxin An, Ming Zhong, Zhichao Geng, Jianqiang Yang, and Xipeng Qiu. Retrievalsum: A retrieval enhanced framework for abstractive summarization.CoRR, abs/2109.07943, 2021. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2109.07943

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Self-rag: Learn- ing to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection

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

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Benchmarking large language models in retrieval-augmented generation

    Jiawei Chen, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, and Le Sun. Benchmarking large language models in retrieval-augmented generation. In Michael J. Wooldridge, Jennifer G. Dy, and Sriraam Natarajan, editors,Thirty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2024, Thirty- Sixth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2024, Four...

    2024

  4. [4]

    The power of noise: Redefining retrieval for RAG systems

    Florin Cuconasu, Giovanni Trappolini, Federico Siciliano, Simone Filice, Cesare Campagnano, Yoelle Maarek, Nicola Tonellotto, and Fabrizio Silvestri. The power of noise: Redefining retrieval for RAG systems. In Grace Hui Yang, Hongning Wang, Sam Han, Claudia Hauff, Guido Zuccon, and Yi Zhang, editors,Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Confere...

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Deepseek-v3 technical report.CoRR, abs/2412.19437, 2024

    DeepSeek-AI, Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, and et al. Deepseek-v3 technical report.CoRR, abs/2412.19437, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2412.19437. URLhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.19437

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.19437 2024

  6. [6]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.CoRR, abs/2501.12948, 2025

    DeepSeek-AI, Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, and et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.CoRR, abs/2501.12948, 2025. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2501.12948. URL https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.12948

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.12948 2025

  7. [7]

    The llama 3 herd of models.CoRR, abs/2407.21783, 2024

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Kevin Stone, and et al. The llama 3 herd of models.CoRR, abs/2407.21783, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2407.21783. URL https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2407.21783

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.21783 2024

  8. [8]

    Enhancing noise robustness of retrieval-augmented language models with adaptive adversarial training

    Feiteng Fang, Yuelin Bai, Shiwen Ni, Min Yang, Xiaojun Chen, and Ruifeng Xu. Enhancing noise robustness of retrieval-augmented language models with adaptive adversarial training. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar, editors,Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 202...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.54 2024

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey.CoRR, abs/2312.10997, 2023

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, Qianyu Guo, Meng Wang, and Haofen Wang. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey.CoRR, abs/2312.10997, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2312.10997. URLhttps://doi.org/...

    2023 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    REALM: retrieval-augmented language model pre-training.CoRR, abs/2002.08909, 2020

    Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Ming-Wei Chang. REALM: retrieval-augmented language model pre-training.CoRR, abs/2002.08909, 2020. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2002.08909

    2002 arXiv

  3. [11]

    RAG-QA arena: Evaluating domain robustness for long- form retrieval augmented question answering

    Rujun Han, Yuhao Zhang, Peng Qi, Yumo Xu, Jenyuan Wang, Lan Liu, William Yang Wang, Bonan Min, and Vittorio Castelli. RAG-QA arena: Evaluating domain robustness for long- form retrieval augmented question answering. In Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun- Nung Chen, editor...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Hierarchical indexing for retrieval-augmented opinion summarization.Trans

    Tom Hosking, Hao Tang, and Mirella Lapata. Hierarchical indexing for retrieval-augmented opinion summarization.Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, 12:1533–1555, 2024. doi: 10.1162/ TACL\_A\_00703. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00703

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Tchrakian, Radu Marinescu, Elizabeth Daly, Inkit Padhi, and Prasanna Sattigeri

    Yufang Hou, Alessandra Pascale, Javier Carnerero-Cano, Tigran T. Tchrakian, Radu Marinescu, Elizabeth Daly, Inkit Padhi, and Prasanna Sattigeri. Wikicontradict: A benchmark for evaluating llms on real-world knowledge conflicts from wikipedia. In Amir Globersons, Lester Mackey,...

    2024

  6. [14]

    RAGGED: towards informed design of retrieval augmented generation systems.CoRR, abs/2403.09040, 2024

    Jennifer Hsia, Afreen Shaikh, Zhiruo Wang, and Graham Neubig. RAGGED: towards informed design of retrieval augmented generation systems.CoRR, abs/2403.09040, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ ARXIV .2403.09040. URLhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.09040

    2024 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Adversarial example gener- ation with syntactically controlled paraphrase networks

    Mohit Iyyer, John Wieting, Kevin Gimpel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Adversarial example gener- ation with syntactically controlled paraphrase networks. In Marilyn A. Walker, Heng Ji, and Amanda Stent, editors,Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the A...

    2018

  8. [16]

    Unsupervised dense information retrieval with contrastive learn- ing.Trans

    Gautier Izacard, Mathilde Caron, Lucas Hosseini, Sebastian Riedel, Piotr Bojanowski, Armand Joulin, and Edouard Grave. Unsupervised dense information retrieval with contrastive learn- ing.Trans. Mach. Learn. Res., 2022, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id= jKN1pXi7b0

    2022

  9. [17]

    Bowen Jin, Jinsung Yoon, Jiawei Han, and Sercan Ö. Arik. Long-context llms meet RAG: overcoming challenges for long inputs in RAG.CoRR, abs/2410.05983, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ ARXIV .2410.05983. URLhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.05983

    2024 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering

    Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Bonnie Webber, Trevor Cohn, Yulan He, and Yang Liu, editors,Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Em...

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova, Llion Jones, Matthew Kelcey, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew M

    Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur P. Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova, Llion Jones, Matthew Kelcey, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew M. Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and S...

    2019 doi

  12. [21]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Na- man Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. In Hugo Larochelle,...

    2020

  13. [22]

    RAG-DDR: optimizing retrieval- augmented generation using differentiable data rewards.CoRR, abs/2410.13509, 2024

    Xinze Li, Sen Mei, Zhenghao Liu, Yukun Yan, Shuo Wang, Shi Yu, Zheni Zeng, Hao Chen, Ge Yu, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Chenyan Xiong. RAG-DDR: optimizing retrieval- augmented generation using differentiable data rewards.CoRR, abs/2410.13509, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2410....

    doi arXiv

  14. [23]

    RECALL: A benchmark for llms robustness against external counterfactual knowledge.CoRR, abs/2311.08147, 2023

    Yi Liu, Lianzhe Huang, Shicheng Li, Sishuo Chen, Hao Zhou, Fandong Meng, Jie Zhou, and Xu Sun. RECALL: A benchmark for llms robustness against external counterfactual knowledge.CoRR, abs/2311.08147, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2311.08147. URL https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.08147

    2023 doi arXiv

  15. [24]

    GPT-4 technical report.CoRR, abs/2303.08774, 2023

    OpenAI. GPT-4 technical report.CoRR, abs/2303.08774, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2303. 08774. URLhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774

    2023 doi arXiv

  16. [25]

    Squad: 100, 000+ questions for machine comprehension of text

    Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. Squad: 100, 000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Jian Su, Xavier Carreras, and Kevin Duh, editors,Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 20...

    2016 doi

  17. [26]

    Sentence-BERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERT- networks

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. Sentence-BERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERT- networks. In Kentaro Inui, Jing Jiang, Vincent Ng, and Xiaojun Wan, editors,Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International ...

    2019 doi

  18. [27]

    Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza

    Stephen E. Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza. The probabilistic relevance framework: BM25 and beyond.Found. Trends Inf. Retr., 3(4):333–389, 2009. doi: 10.1561/1500000019. URL https://doi.org/10.1561/1500000019

    2009 doi

  19. [28]

    DRAGIN: dynamic retrieval augmented generation based on the real-time information needs of large language models

    Weihang Su, Yichen Tang, Qingyao Ai, Zhijing Wu, and Yiqun Liu. DRAGIN: dynamic retrieval augmented generation based on the real-time information needs of large language models. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar, editors,Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of...

    2024 doi

  20. [29]

    knowing when you don’t know

    Nandan Thakur, Luiz Bonifacio, Xinyu Zhang, Odunayo Ogundepo, Ehsan Kamalloo, David Alfonso-Hermelo, Xiaoguang Li, Qun Liu, Boxing Chen, Mehdi Rezagholizadeh, and Jimmy Lin. "knowing when you don’t know": A multilingual relevance assessment dataset for robust retrieval-augment...

    2024

  21. [30]

    Rbft: Robust fine-tuning for retrieval-augmented generation against retrieval defects.CoRR, abs/2501.18365, 2025

    Yiteng Tu, Weihang Su, Yujia Zhou, Yiqun Liu, and Qingyao Ai. Rbft: Robust fine-tuning for retrieval-augmented generation against retrieval defects.CoRR, abs/2501.18365, 2025. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2501.18365. URLhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.18365

    2025 doi arXiv

  22. [31]

    Text embeddings by weakly-supervised contrastive pre-training

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

    2022 doi arXiv

  23. [32]

    Targeted augmentation for low-resource event extraction

    Sijia Wang and Lifu Huang. Targeted augmentation for low-resource event extraction. In Kevin Duh, Helena Gómez-Adorno, and Steven Bethard, editors,Findings of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics: NAACL 2024, Mexico City, Mexico, June 16-21, 2024, pages 4414–4428. A...

    2024 doi

  24. [33]

    Self-knowledge guided retrieval augmentation for large language models

    Yile Wang, Peng Li, Maosong Sun, and Yang Liu. Self-knowledge guided retrieval augmentation for large language models. In Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali, editors,Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, Singapore, December 6-10, 2023, p...

    2023 doi

  25. [34]

    Rizwan Parvez, and Graham Neubig

    Zhiruo Wang, Jun Araki, Zhengbao Jiang, Md. Rizwan Parvez, and Graham Neubig. Learning to filter context for retrieval-augmented generation.CoRR, abs/2311.08377, 2023. doi: 10. 48550/ARXIV .2311.08377. URLhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.08377

    2023 doi arXiv

  26. [35]

    Wei and Kai Zou

    Jason W. Wei and Kai Zou. EDA: easy data augmentation techniques for boosting performance on text classification tasks. In Kentaro Inui, Jing Jiang, Vincent Ng, and Xiaojun Wan, editors, Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and...

    2019 doi

  27. [36]

    Instructrag: Instructing retrieval-augmented genera- tion with explicit denoising.CoRR, abs/2406.13629, 2024

    Zhepei Wei, Wei-Lin Chen, and Yu Meng. Instructrag: Instructing retrieval-augmented genera- tion with explicit denoising.CoRR, abs/2406.13629, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2406.13629. URLhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.13629

    2024 doi arXiv

  28. [37]

    Pandora’s box or aladdin’s lamp: A comprehensive analysis revealing the role of RAG noise in large language models.CoRR, abs/2408.13533, 2024

    Jinyang Wu, Feihu Che, Chuyuan Zhang, Jianhua Tao, Shuai Zhang, and Pengpeng Shao. Pandora’s box or aladdin’s lamp: A comprehensive analysis revealing the role of RAG noise in large language models.CoRR, abs/2408.13533, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2408.13533. URLhttps://doi.org...

    2024 doi arXiv

  29. [38]

    Improving retrieval augmented language model with self-reasoning

    Yuan Xia, Jingbo Zhou, Zhenhui Shi, Jun Chen, and Haifeng Huang. Improving retrieval augmented language model with self-reasoning. In Toby Walsh, Julie Shah, and Zico Kolter, editors,AAAI-25, Sponsored by the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, February...

    2025

  30. [39]

    Unsupervised information refinement training of large language models for retrieval-augmented generation

    Shicheng Xu, Liang Pang, Mo Yu, Fandong Meng, Huawei Shen, Xueqi Cheng, and Jie Zhou. Unsupervised information refinement training of large language models for retrieval-augmented generation. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar, editors,Proceedings of the 62nd Ann...

    2024 doi

  31. [40]

    Corrective retrieval augmented generation.CoRR, abs/2401.15884, 2024

    Shi-Qi Yan, Jia-Chen Gu, Yun Zhu, and Zhen-Hua Ling. Corrective retrieval augmented generation.CoRR, abs/2401.15884, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2401.15884. URL https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.15884

    2024 doi arXiv

  32. [41]

    Qwen2.5 technical report.CoRR, abs/2412.15115, 2024

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, and et al. Qwen2.5 technical report.CoRR, abs/2412.15115, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV .2412. 15115. URLhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.15115

    2024 doi arXiv

  33. [42]

    Cohen, Ruslan Salakhut- dinov, and Christopher D

    Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William W. Cohen, Ruslan Salakhut- dinov, and Christopher D. Manning. Hotpotqa: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi- hop question answering. In Ellen Riloff, David Chiang, Julia Hockenmaier, and Jun’ichi Tsujii, editors...

    2018 doi

  34. [43]

    Making retrieval-augmented language models robust to irrelevant context

    Ori Yoran, Tomer Wolfson, Ori Ram, and Jonathan Berant. Making retrieval-augmented language models robust to irrelevant context. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024. OpenReview.net, 2024. URLhttps://ope...

    2024

  35. [44]

    Chain-of-note: Enhancing robustness in retrieval-augmented language models

    Wenhao Yu, Hongming Zhang, Xiaoman Pan, Peixin Cao, Kaixin Ma, Jian Li, Hongwei Wang, and Dong Yu. Chain-of-note: Enhancing robustness in retrieval-augmented language models. In Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun-Nung Chen, editors,Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Em...

    2024

  36. [45]

    Zimbabwe, a landlocked nation in southern Africa, lies between the Zambezi and Limpopo Rivers. It shares borders with South Africa, Botswana, Zambia, and

    Yuan Zang, Fanchao Qi, Chenghao Yang, Zhiyuan Liu, Meng Zhang, Qun Liu, and Maosong Sun. Word-level textual adversarial attacking as combinatorial optimization. In Dan Jurafsky, Joyce Chai, Natalie Schluter, and Joel R. Tetreault, editors,Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting...

    2020 doi

  37. [51]

    relativity→quantum mechanics

    Given a Question, a Short Answer and a Golden Document, generate 10 Distracting Documents through these stages: a) Core Entity Substitution: •Identify question-critical entities in Short Answer • Replace with same-domain but incorrect entities using: 1-Theoretical: Keep discip...

    2019

  38. [52]

    Preserve non-critical authentic details from Golden Document for Distracting Documents

  39. [53]

    Eliminate: - Cross-dimensional substitutions (animal →architecture terms) - Numerical contradictions (e.g., mismatched magnitude)

  40. [54]

    Output Format: •Generate 10 Distracting Documents (d0-d9) •Each must contain question-related erroneous core entities •Maintain original JSON structure with proper escaping

  41. [55]

    fish climb trees

    Critical Avoidances: •Cross-category entity swaps •Internal chronological conflicts •Commonsense violations (e.g., "fish climb trees") Question: <question> Short Answer: <corresponding answer to the question> Golden Document: <origin golden document> Example Input: ... Example...

  42. [56]

    Given 7 paragraphs and semantically related Question, please generate a fine-tuned paragraph for each paragraph, by modifying relevant entities or adding relevant expressions to make it contain incorrect knowledge, while ensuring that they are still semantically relevant to th...

  43. [57]

    birds swim in water

    Each generated paragraph must meet the following requirements: • Contains incorrect information, but should not violate common sense (for example: do not make obvious mistakes such as "birds swim in water"). • No internal logical errors are allowed (for example: "The 2019 AFC ...

    2019

  44. [58]

    The generated paragraph needs to be semantically relevant to the question, but should not include sentences that can directly answer the question

  45. [59]

    The Radio station is broadcasting a combination of Hindi and Regional music

    Please output strictly in the following example format, including all necessary quotes and escape characters. Question: <question> Documents: <related document 1>, <related document 2>,..., <related document 7> Example Input: Question: Where is the capital of France? Document ...

  46. [60]

    Answer the given Question Directly, do NOT add any explanations when giving the response

  47. [61]

    I cannot answer the question

    If you cannot answer with certainty due to insufficient information, you MUST respond verbatim: “I cannot answer the question.” Question:<question> Figure 15: Inference Prompt of NORAG VanillaRAG - Inference Prompt Task Description:

  48. [62]

    Answer the given Question based on the Retrieval Documents, do NOT add any explanations when giving the response

  49. [63]

    I cannot answer the question

    If you cannot answer with certainty due to insufficient information, you MUST respond verbatim: “I cannot answer the question.” Question:<question> Retrieval Documents:<retrieval documents> Figure 16: Inference Prompt of VANILLARAG 20 ChainofNote - Inference Prompt Task Description:

  50. [64]

    Read the given Question and Retrieval Documents to gather relevant information

  51. [65]

    Write reading notes summarizing the key points from these passages

  52. [66]

    Discuss the relevance of the given question and Wikipedia passages

  53. [67]

    If some passages are relevant to the given question, provide a brief answer based on the passages

  54. [68]

    If no passage is relevant, directly provide answer without considering the passages

  55. [69]

    I cannot answer the question

    If you cannot answer with certainty due to insufficient information, you MUST respond verbatim: “I cannot answer the question.” Question:<question> Retrieval Documents:<retrieval documents> Figure 17: Inference Prompt of CHAINOFNOTE SKR - Retrieval Check Prompt Task Descriptio...

    1950

  56. [70]

    Compare the Candidate Answer to the Correct Answer in the context of the Question

  57. [71]

    Score 1:Partially correct but contains significant errors

    Assign a score from 0 to 5 based on accuracy and completeness: Score 0:Completely incorrect or irrelevant. Score 1:Partially correct but contains significant errors. Score 3:Moderately correct but lacks some details or precision. Score 5:Fully correct and matches the Correct Answer

  58. [72]

    How many Beverly Hills cops movies are there?

    Output ONLY the score as a single number (e.g. “3”). Do not include any explanations. Question:<question> Correct Answer:<correct answer> Candidate Answer:<llm answer> Figure 21: Prompt for the Evaluation of Correctness D.2 Human-AI Alignment 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 0 .1 0...

  59. [275]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-naacl.275

    2024 doi

  60. [1885]

    doi: 10.18653/V1/N18-1170

    Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018. doi: 10.18653/V1/N18-1170. URL https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/n18-1170

    2018 doi

  61. [2024]

    URLhttps://aclanthology.org/2024.emnlp-main.813

    2024

  62. [2025]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v39i24

    doi: 10.1609/AAAI.V39I24.34743. URL https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v39i24. 34743

    doi

  63. [4374]

    URL https://aclanthology.org/ 2024.emnlp-main.249

    Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024. URL https://aclanthology.org/ 2024.emnlp-main.249

    2024

Pith tools

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