Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 46 references

A Comprehensive Graph Framework for Question Answering with Mode-Seeking Preference Alignment

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GraphMPA combines a similarity-built hierarchical document graph with mode-seeking preference optimization to beat RAG baselines on six QA datasets.

desk verdict The graph retrieval component is the real, well-supported contribution; the mode-seeking preference loss is not actually defined or verified, so the theoretical framing overclaims what the experiments show. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17951 v1 pith:UNICBLWN submitted 2025-06-22 cs.CL

Quanwei Tang , Sophia Yat Mei Lee , Junshuang Wu , Dong Zhang , Shoushan Li , Erik Cambria , Guodong Zhou This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords Retrieval-AugmentedGenerationQuestionAnsweringHierarchicalDocumentGraphCommunitySummarizationPreferenceAlignmentMode-SeekingOptimizationDirectSmallLanguageModels
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 question answering can be improved by organizing external documents into a hierarchical graph built from embedding-similarity edges and community summaries, then fine-tuning the generator with a mode-seeking preference objective. The authors argue that entity-based graph retrieval misses sentences without entities, and that standard DPO-style alignment spreads probability mass across modes instead of concentrating on the human-preferred mode. On six QA datasets spanning general, riddle, and medical questions, GraphMPA beats Basic RAG, RAPTOR, LightGraphRAG, and Reward-RAG with LLaMA-8B, Qwen-7B, and Mistral-8B backbones. The framework aims to show that small-LLM data synthesis plus graph-aware retrieval can replace GPT-4-scale supervision.

What carries the argument

The central objects are (1) a hierarchical document graph whose nodes are small document chunks or community summaries, edges are cosine similarities between embeddings above a threshold $\tau$, and layers are built by Leiden community detection followed by LLM summarization, and (2) the mode-seeking loss $L_{ms}(\pi_\theta) = \mathbb{E}_{x\sim D_{pref}} \mathbb{E}_{\pi_{sft}(y_{1:K}|x)} \left[ D_{KL}(p_{f_\theta}(\cdot|y_{1:K},x) \| p_{r_\phi}(\cdot|y_{1:K},x)) \right]$, which aligns the model's empirical distribution with a reward-model-defined empirical distribution by minimizing reverse KL. Retrieval selects top-k documents across layers, and training data is synthesized by small LLMs generating reasoning, with chosen answers including reasoning and rejected answers being answer-only.

What would settle it

One concrete check is to inspect the training code and confirm the loss exactly matches Eq. (14) with a defined reward-model distribution; if the code uses a standard DPO loss such as $\log\sigma(\beta(\log\pi_\theta(y_w) - \log\pi_\theta(y_l)))$, then the mode-seeking claim is not what the experiments test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

GraphMPA's central claim is that two complementary mechanisms—a hierarchical document graph with community summarization based on generic embedding similarity, and mode-seeking preference optimization based on automatically synthesized small-LLM data—together improve RAG-based QA across six datasets. The graph replaces entity-relation extraction with dense-embedding cosine similarity and Leiden community detection, producing layers of summary nodes that supply both low-level and high-level context. The alignment step constructs chosen/rejected pairs where chosen answers include reasoning chains generated by small LLMs and rejected answers are answer-only, then optimizes a reverse-KL mode-seeking loss rather than DPO's forward-KL mean-seeking loss. Table 1 reports consistent gains over baselines for all three backbones, and ablations attribute the gain to retrieval, summarization, and training.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the training really optimizes the mode-seeking objective in Eq. (14) against a reward-model distribution; the paper never describes a reward model or verifies that the implemented loss equals this formula.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Graph-based retrieval can be built with generic embedding models and small LLMs, avoiding costly entity-relation extraction by large models.
  • Retrieval over multiple graph layers supplies both low-level detail and high-level synthesized context, which the ablations show is necessary for the gains.
  • Mode-seeking preference alignment with small-LLM synthetic reasoning data can outperform DPO-style alignment in the tested QA settings.
  • The framework generalizes across LLaMA, Qwen, and Mistral instruction-tuned models in the 7B-8B range.
  • If the ablation results hold, each component—graph building, retrieval, and preference training—adds measurable value.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mode-seeking loss is implemented as described, it should apply to any preference-alignment task, such as summarization or dialogue, where concentrating on one preferred mode is desirable rather than covering all modes.
  • The graph construction recipe is input-domain agnostic, so the same similarity-plus-community-summarization approach could be tested on legal, scientific, or other long-document tasks.
  • A sharper test would isolate the graph contribution from the alignment contribution by comparing GraphMPA against a version with DPO, holding the data and graph fixed; the paper's ablation removes training or swaps DPO but does not fully separate the two mechanisms.
  • Because the paper never specifies a reward model behind $p_{r_\phi}$, the practical implementation may reduce to a DPO variant; if so, the empirical gains would still support the graph and data-synthesis contributions, but not the mode-seeking mechanism.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GraphMPA, a retrieval-augmented question-answering framework built on a hierarchical document graph with community summarization, combined with a preference-alignment stage called mode-seeking preference optimization (MS). The graph is constructed by splitting documents, embedding them, connecting nodes by cosine similarity, detecting communities with the Leiden algorithm, and recursively summarizing communities into higher layers. The preference-alignment component builds a synthetic chosen/rejected dataset with small LLMs and claims to optimize a reverse-KL, mode-seeking loss rather than the forward-KL objective of standard DPO. Experiments on QASPER, QuALITY, RiddleSense, PubMedQA, MedQA, and MedMcQA across three 7B-8B backbones report consistent gains over Basic RAG, RAPTOR, LightGraphRAG, and Reward-RAG, along with ablations of the graph depth, retrieval top-k, similarity threshold, and training component.

Significance. If the empirical results hold, the graph-construction contribution is practically valuable: it avoids the expensive entity-relation extraction used by GraphRAG-style methods, uses only small LLMs for summarization, and shows gains on a diverse set of QA benchmarks, including long-document and medical QA. The paper also provides a fairly complete ablation structure that separates the contributions of retrieval, summarization, and training. However, the mode-seeking theory is currently not supported as written: the reward-model distribution in the central objective is never defined, the training implementation is not shown to match the stated loss, and the derivation in Appendix B contains optimization-direction errors. The paper is therefore significant but conditional on the authors clarifying and verifying the preference-alignment contribution.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (8) and (14)] The mode-seeking loss is not a well-defined training objective as written. The distribution pr_phi(·|y1:K,x) is called "the empirical distribution based on the reward model," but no reward model is defined or trained anywhere in the paper, and Section 4.1 reports only that training uses the trl library with learning rate 1e-5, batch size 4, and 2 epochs. Consequently, the reader cannot tell whether the implemented loss is the reverse-KL objective in Eq. (14) or a standard DPO/IPO loss available in trl, and the claimed mode-seeking mechanism is not verified by the experiments. Please specify how pr_phi is constructed, how gradients of the KL term are computed, and provide a code-level description of the training loss; if the implemented loss is a standard preference-optimization loss, the mode-seeking claim should be revised or removed.
  2. [Appendix B, Eqs. (10), (11), and (13)] The derivation contains technical errors that undermine the distinction between mode-seeking and mean-seeking. Eqs. (10) and (11) define both pi_ms and pi_dpo as the arg max of a KL divergence; minimizing either forward or reverse KL should be written as arg min. In addition, Eq. (13) defines the forward KL D_KL(pi*||pi) with an expectation under y~pi(y|x), but the expectation for the forward KL should be under y~pi*(y|x). These errors must be corrected before the appendix can support Eq. (14).
  3. [Section 4.2, Table 1] All reported numbers appear to come from a single run, with no error bars, no number of seeds, and no significance tests. Several gaps are small, for example QuALITY with Qwen 7B (47.64 vs. 47.32 for Basic RAG) and MedMcQA with LLaMa 8B (64.28 for GraphMPA vs. 64.16 for both w/ DPO and w/o Training), so without variance estimates it is impossible to know whether the claimed improvement is reliable. Please report mean and standard deviation over at least three seeds and, where feasible, a paired significance test for the main comparisons.
  4. [Section 4.3, Figure 6] The log-probability comparison on PubMedQA is a weak and indirect validation of "better human preference alignment." The paper does not define a reward model, so the assertion that higher log probability means "more in line with human preferences" is not substantiated. Moreover, the observation that the MS distribution is "concentrated in a small range" is a variance statement, not evidence of mode-seeking behavior. A convincing validation would require either a held-out preference set with human judgments or a direct evaluation of the trained policy against a defined reward distribution.
  5. [Section 3.2, Preferred Dataset Preparation] The procedure for constructing Dpref is underspecified and is load-bearing for the preference-alignment claim. The paper states that 20,000 samples are synthesized from TrainQAs for all datasets, but it does not say whether the "answer" in the chosen response is the gold answer or the small LLM's own answer, how the context subsets C1,C2,... are sampled, or how rejected responses are generated beyond "only includes the answer." Since the MS loss in Eq. (14) assumes a well-defined preference distribution over chosen and rejected responses, the authors should provide the full prompt templates, filtering rules, and a precise description of the data-generation pipeline.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (8)] The notation y1:K is used without definition; y1,...,yK should be defined as the sampled response set, and the statement that Dpref "contains human-labeled preference data" conflicts with the auto-synthesized construction described in the same section.
  2. [Algorithm 1] The pseudocode has typos and inconsistencies: line 3 contains "summay," and the edge-selection procedure in Algorithm 1 uses a full argsort while Algorithm 2 uses top-k selection; the two algorithms should be aligned and the function arguments (large, small, n_layers, tau) should be consistent.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (6)] Eq. (6) writes the retrieval step as a max over graph layers, but the surrounding text says the method selects the top-k most similar documents. Please clarify how layer-level similarity scores are aggregated into a document ranking.
  4. [Figure 6] The figure has no axis labels or legend; the reader cannot tell which point cloud corresponds to MS, DPO, or SFT, and the quantitative claim about medians cannot be checked from the plot as rendered.
  5. [Section 4.2] The sentence "Qwen 7B surpasses all other models, excluding GPT-4" is confusing because Table 1 shows that Mistral 8B outperforms Qwen 7B on four of the six datasets; please rephrase to describe the backbone comparisons accurately.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: GraphMPA's empirical gains rest on external benchmarks, while the mode-seeking loss is under-specified and the only self-citations are non-load-bearing background references.

full rationale

The central claim is empirical: Table 1 compares GraphMPA against Basic RAG, RAPTOR, LightGraphRAG, and Reward-RAG on six public QA benchmarks with three backbones. This comparison does not reduce to any fitted constant or to a self-citation chain, and Table 3's 'w/o Training' row already exceeds Basic RAG on most datasets, so the graph component has independent empirical content. The mode-seeking loss in Eq. (14) cites Ji et al. (2024) and is written with an 'empirical distribution based on the reward model' (pr_phi) that is never specified or trained; this is a serious specification and reproducibility gap, but it is not circularity because the paper never defines pr_phi in terms of the reported results, and no equation maps the implemented trl training objective to Eq. (14). Appendix B contains a mathematical typo in Eqs. (10)-(11), writing arg max where KL minimization requires arg min, but this is an optimization-direction error, not a circular reduction. The only overlapping-author references are background citations involving Erik Cambria (e.g., Cambria et al. 2013; Oneto et al. 2016; Huang et al. 2025); none of them carries the load of the graph or alignment claims, which rely on external work such as Rafailov et al., Ji et al., Edge et al., Sarthi et al., and Guo et al. The tuning of hyperparameters such as tau, layer count, and top-k on the evaluation datasets is a data-selection concern, but it is not an example of fitting a parameter and then calling a closely related quantity a prediction; the reported tables are the selected configurations, not extrapolations built from those fits. Overall, no step in the derivation chain is equivalent to its inputs by construction, so the paper is not circular, and the score reflects only minor, non-load-bearing self-citations and an under-specified theoretical loss rather than a genuine circularity finding.

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

The method rests on standard RAG and KL-divergence mathematics, but several domain assumptions are unstated: embedding similarity captures the semantic relations needed for global understanding; community summaries are faithful; small-LLM reasoning is a valid proxy for human preference; and the mode-seeking loss is implementable without an explicit reward model. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • similarity threshold tau = 0.5
    Figure 9 shows performance peaks around tau=0.5 on QuALITY and PubMedQA; chosen by tuning on these datasets.
  • graph depth n_layers = 2
    Figure 4 shows improvement at layer 2 then stabilization or decline, so depth 2 is used in main experiments.
  • retrieval top-k = not explicitly stated
    Section 3.2 says top-k small documents are retrieved; Figure 5 tunes k, and Appendix H uses k=10, but the exact k for each dataset is not reported.
  • large/small chunk sizes = not reported
    Algorithm 1 takes 'large' and 'small' chunk lengths, but their numerical values are not given in the paper.
  • number of synthetic preference samples = 20000
    Section 4.1 states 20000 samples are synthesized for each dataset for preference training.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity between document embeddings is a sufficient proxy for semantic relevance for graph construction and retrieval.
    Section 3.1, Eq. (1); the entire graph construction relies on embedding similarity as a general similarity measurement.
  • domain assumption Community summaries produced by LLMs faithfully capture the high-level content of each community.
    Section 3.1, community detection and summarization step; if summaries are lossy or misleading, upper graph layers degrade performance.
  • domain assumption Small-LLM-generated reasoning chains are reliable and preferable to answers without reasoning.
    Section 3.2, 'Preferred Dataset Preparation', where y_w includes reasoning generated by Qwen2.5-7B, LLaMA3-8B, or Mistral-8B, with no human verification.
  • ad hoc to paper The mode-seeking loss in Eq. (14) is computable with the stated distributions, including a reward-model distribution pr_phi.
    Section 3.2 and Appendix B define pr_phi as an empirical distribution based on the reward model, but no reward model is trained or described.
  • standard math DPO and reverse-KL mode-seeking comparison (Eq. 10 vs 11) correctly describes the behavior of the trained policies.
    Appendix B uses standard definitions of forward and reverse KL divergence from Chan et al. (2022) and Ji et al. (2024).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Comprehensive Graph Framework for Question Answering with Mode-Seeking Preference Alignment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UNICBLWN

@misc{pith2026250617951,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Comprehensive Graph Framework for Question Answering with Mode-Seeking Preference Alignment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UNICBLWN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17951}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advancements in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) have enhanced large language models in question answering by integrating external knowledge. However, challenges persist in achieving global understanding and aligning responses with human ethical and quality preferences. To address these issues, we propose GraphMPA, a comprehensive graph-based framework with mode-seeking preference alignment. Our approach constructs a hierarchical document graph using a general similarity measurement, mimicking human cognitive processes for information understanding and synthesis. Additionally, we introduce mode-seeking preference optimization to better align model outputs with human preferences through probability-matching constraints. Extensive experiments on six datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our \href{https://github.com/tangquanwei/GraphMPA}{GraphMPA}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17951 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Prior entity-based graph and (b) Our hi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The process of building the hierarchical graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The human preference alignment training process with MS loss. ranking: eq = EMBED(q) (5) Next, we calculate the similarity between the query embedding and all documents at each layer. The top k most similar documents are then selected: results = max Dlayer∈layers sim(eq, Dlayer) (6) where the query embedding eq is compared with each document Dlayer across all layers. The sim￾ilarity function sim measures the semanti… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance comparison of our GraphMPA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The log probabilities on PubMedQA with the trained model using MS, DPO and non-trained SFT model. 0 68 0 26 0 19 layer 1 layer 2 0.000 8.500 17.00 25.50 34.00 42.50 51.00 59.50 68.00 layer 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An example of community summarization process in our graph building from QuALITY. Layer 1 consists of 69 small documents, Layer 2 is the commu￾nity summary (0-26) derived from Layer 1, and Layer 3 is the community summary (0-19) derived from Layer 2. and cannot even ac…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The figure shows two descriptions of the cities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Impact of τ Value in Graph. H Contributions Analysis of Layers Statistical analysis of the top-k document distri￾bution across different graph layers highlights the respective contributions of both low-level and high￾level documents to the final output generation. We r…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: An example of QuALITY, LightRAG extracts nodes and edges from documents compared to our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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 INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Tahani H Alwaneen, Aqil M Azmi, Hatim A Aboalsamh, Erik Cambria, and Amir Hussain. 2022. Arabic question answering system: A survey. Artificial Intelligence Review, 55(1):207--253

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Akari Asai, Zeqiu Wu, Yizhong Wang, Avirup Sil, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2024. SELF-RAG : LEARNING TO RETRIEVE , GENERATE , AND CRITIQUE THROUGH SELF-REFLECTION

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

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

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Erik Cambria, Bjoern Schuller, Bing Liu, Haixun Wang, and Catherine Havasi. 2013. Statistical approaches to concept-level sentiment analysis. IEEE Intelligent Systems , 28(3):6--9

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Rupam Mahmood, and Martha White

    Alan Chan, Hugo Silva, Sungsu Lim, Tadashi Kozuno, A. Rupam Mahmood, and Martha White. 2022. https://jmlr.org/papers/v23/21-054.html Greedification operators for policy optimization: Investigating forward and reverse KL divergences . J. Mach. Learn. Res., 23:253:1--253:79

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Paul Chandler and John Sweller. 1991. Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and instruction, 8(4):293--332

    work page 1991

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Jianlv Chen, Shitao Xiao, Peitian Zhang, Kun Luo, Defu Lian, and Zheng Liu. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03216 Bge m3-embedding: Multi-lingual, multi-functionality, multi-granularity text embeddings through self-knowledge distillation . Preprint, arXiv:2402.03216

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei

    Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom B. Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03741 Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences . Preprint, arXiv:1706.03741

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Smith, and Matt Gardner

    Pradeep Dasigi, Kyle Lo, Iz Beltagy, Arman Cohan, Noah A. Smith, and Matt Gardner. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.03011 A dataset of information-seeking questions and answers anchored in research papers . Preprint, arXiv:2105.03011

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Darren Edge, Ha Trinh, Newman Cheng, Joshua Bradley, Alex Chao, Apurva Mody, Steven Truitt, and Jonathan Larson. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.16130 From Local to Global : A Graph RAG Approach to Query-Focused Summarization . Preprint, arXiv:2404.16130

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Kavita Ganesan. 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.01937 Rouge 2.0: Updated and improved measures for evaluation of summarization tasks . Preprint, arXiv:1803.01937

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, Meng Wang, and Haofen Wang. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10997 Retrieval- Augmented Generation for Large Language Models : A Survey . Preprint, arXiv:2312.10997

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, and Abhinav Jauhri. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21783 The llama 3 herd of models . Preprint, arXiv:2407.21783

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Zirui Guo, Lianghao Xia, Yanhua Yu, Tu Ao, and Chao Huang. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.05779 LightRAG : Simple and Fast Retrieval - Augmented Generation . arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2410.05779 [cs]

    2024 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    Zihao Huang, Rui Mao, Xiaobao Wu, Kai He, Xulang Zhang, and Erik Cambria. 2025. Fundamental algorithms for retrieval augmented generation: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering

    2025

  10. [18]

    Haozhe Ji, Cheng Lu, Yilin Niu, Pei Ke, Hongning Wang, Jun Zhu, Jie Tang, and Minlie Huang. 2024. Towards efficient exact optimization of language model alignment. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'24. JMLR.org

    2024

  11. [19]

    Di Jin, Eileen Pan, Nassim Oufattole, Wei-Hung Weng, Hanyi Fang, and Peter Szolovits. 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.13081 What disease does this patient have? a large-scale open domain question answering dataset from medical exams . Preprint, arXiv:2009.13081

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Cohen, and Xinghua Lu

    Qiao Jin, Bhuwan Dhingra, Zhengping Liu, William W. Cohen, and Xinghua Lu. 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.06146 Pubmedqa: A dataset for biomedical research question answering . Preprint, arXiv:1909.06146

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

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

    Patrick 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. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11401 Retrieval- Augmented Generation for Know...

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Bill Yuchen Lin, Ziyi Wu, Yichi Yang, Dong-Ho Lee, and Xiang Ren. 2021 a . https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.00376 Riddlesense: Reasoning about riddle questions featuring linguistic creativity and commonsense knowledge . Preprint, arXiv:2101.00376

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. https://aclanthology.org/W04-1013 ROUGE : A package for automatic evaluation of summaries . In Text Summarization Branches Out, pages 74--81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2004

  16. [24]

    Gormley, and Jason Eisner

    Chu - Cheng Lin, Aaron Jaech, Xin Li, Matthew R. Gormley, and Jason Eisner. 2021 b . https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2021.NAACL-MAIN.405 Limitations of autoregressive models and their alternatives . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Associa...

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang

    Nelson F. Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.03172 Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts . Preprint, arXiv:2307.03172

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Qian Liu, Xiubo Geng, Yu Wang, Erik Cambria, and Daxin Jiang. 2024. Disentangled retrieval and reasoning for implicit question answering. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , 35(6):7804--7815

    2024

  19. [27]

    Mistral AI . 2025. Un Ministral, des Ministraux . https://mistral.ai/news/ministraux/. Accessed: 2025-01-19

    2025

  20. [28]

    Thang Nguyen, Peter Chin, and Yu-Wing Tai. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.03780 Reward- RAG : Enhancing RAG with Reward Driven Supervision . Preprint, arXiv:2410.03780

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Luca Oneto, Federica Bisio, Erik Cambria, and Davide Anguita. 2016. Statistical learning theory and ELM for big social data analysis. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine , 11(3):45--55

    2016

  22. [30]

    OpenAI, Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, and Lama Ahmad. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774 Gpt-4 technical report . Preprint, arXiv:2303.08774

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and...

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ankit Pal, Logesh Kumar Umapathi, and Malaikannan Sankarasubbu. 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.14371 Medmcqa : A large-scale multi-subject multi-choice dataset for medical domain question answering . Preprint, arXiv:2203.14371

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Alicia Parrish, Nitish Joshi, Nikita Nangia, Jason Phang, Angelica Chen, Vishakh Padmakumar, Johnny Ma, Jana Thompson, He He, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.08608 Quality: Question answering with long input texts, yes! Preprint, ar...

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    David Patterson, Joseph Gonzalez, Urs H \"o lzle, Quoc Le, Chen Liang, Lluis-Miquel Munguia, Daniel Rothchild, David So, Maud Texier, and Jeff Dean. 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.05149 The carbon footprint of machine learning training will plateau, then shrink . Preprint, a...

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Qwen, :, An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxi Yang, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kai Dang, Keming Lu, Keqin Bao, Kexin Yang, ...

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Manning, and Chelsea Finn

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Stefano Ermon, Christopher D. Manning, and Chelsea Finn. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.18290 Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model . Preprint, arXiv:2305.18290

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Parth Sarthi, Salman Abdullah, Aditi Tuli, Shubh Khanna, Anna Goldie, and Christopher D. Manning. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.18059 RAPTOR : Recursive Abstractive Processing for Tree-Organized Retrieval . Preprint, arXiv:2401.18059

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    John Sweller. 1988. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7 Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning . Cognitive Science, 12(2):257--285

    1988 doi

  31. [39]

    Jiaming Tang, Yilong Zhao, Kan Zhu, Guangxuan Xiao, Baris Kasikci, and Song Han. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.10774 Quest: Query-aware sparsity for efficient long-context llm inference . Preprint, arXiv:2406.10774

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Vincent A Traag, Ludo Waltman, and Nees Jan Van Eck. 2019. From louvain to leiden: guaranteeing well-connected communities. Scientific reports, 9(1):1--12

    2019

  33. [41]

    Liang Wang, Nan Yang, Xiaolong Huang, Linjun Yang, Rangan Majumder, and Furu Wei. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.642 Improving text embeddings with large language models . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguisti...

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903 Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2201.11903

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Jincenzi Wu, Zhuang Chen, Jiawen Deng, Sahand Sabour, Helen Meng, and Minlie Huang. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2024.ACL-LONG.848 COKE: A cognitive knowledge graph for machine theory of mind . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational...

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Guangzhi Xiong, Qiao Jin, Zhiyong Lu, and Aidong Zhang. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.13178 Benchmarking retrieval-augmented generation for medicine . Preprint, arXiv:2402.13178

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Shicheng Xu, Liang Pang, Mo Yu, Fandong Meng, Huawei Shen, Xueqi Cheng, and Jie Zhou. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.9 Unsupervised Information Refinement Training of Large Language Models for Retrieval-Augmented Generation . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual ...

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    Penghao Zhao, Hailin Zhang, Qinhan Yu, Zhengren Wang, Yunteng Geng, Fangcheng Fu, Ling Yang, Wentao Zhang, Jie Jiang, and Bin Cui. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.19473 Retrieval-augmented generation for ai-generated content: A survey . Preprint, arXiv:2402.19473

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.