KnowMap: Efficient Knowledge-Driven Task Adaptation for LLMs

Kaigui Bian; Kelin Fu

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 20 references

KnowMap: Efficient Knowledge-Driven Task Adaptation for LLMs

T0 review · 4 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 KnowMap claims that a frozen large LLM can be adapted to an interactive task by building a growing knowledge base and fine-tuning only a 0.56-billion-parameter retrieval model, raising gpt-4-turbo's ScienceWorld score from 64.78 to 76.25…

desk verdict A plausible recipe for adapting LLMs via a fine-tuned retriever, but the 17.71% headline number is unreliable without a documented train/test split between the expert trajectories and the ScienceWorld evaluation episodes. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19527 v1 pith:7LCUWCPG submitted 2025-06-24 cs.CL

Kelin Fu , Kaigui Bian This is my paper

classification cs.CL

keywords LLMagentsretrieval-augmentedgenerationknowledgebaseembeddingfine-tuningScienceWorldtaskadaptationembodiedAIcontrastivelearning

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a large, frozen language model can be adapted to a new interactive task without retraining the model itself. The proposed method, KnowMap, dynamically builds a knowledge base from environmental observations and expert experience, then fine-tunes only a small embedding model of about 0.56 billion parameters to retrieve from it. On ScienceWorld, a text-based benchmark of elementary-science tasks, this raises gpt-4-turbo's task-completion score from 64.78 percent with few-shot prompting to 76.25 percent, a relative improvement of 17.71 percent. The practical stakes are that task adaptation becomes much cheaper and avoids catastrophic forgetting, because the large decision model stays untouched.

What carries the argument

The core machinery is a two-part knowledge base paired with a contrastive fine-tuning objective. Environmental knowledge is stored as (entity, relation, entity/attribute) triples that are updated whenever the agent observes or acts, while experiential knowledge is stored as sub-goal units listing relevant environmental knowledge, associated entities, and reflective reasoning extracted from expert trajectories. Retrieval starts with BGE-M3, a text-embedding model that combines dense, sparse, and multi-vector retrieval, followed by a reranker. Fine-tuning uses an InfoNCE loss with temperature parameter over training samples built from expert trajectories: positive knowledge samples are tied to the objects and sub-goals the expert interacted with, negatives are unrelated entries, and queries combine task descriptions with plans. The objective's job is to reshape the embedding space so that a query carrying current environmental context retrieves the right experiential knowledge.

What would settle it

Evaluate KnowMap after building the knowledge base and fine-tuning the embedder only on one set of ScienceWorld task variations, then measure on a separate set of held-out variations; if the 17.71 percent gain shrinks toward the 66.90 percent untuned-retrieval score, the reported gain is explained by retrieval of near-identical episodes rather than adaptation to new tasks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

KnowMap's central claim is that a frozen large language model can be substantially improved on an open-world agent task by surrounding it with a knowledge base that grows during interaction, and then fine-tuning only the small model that retrieves from that base. The empirical discovery is the fine-tuned retriever, not the knowledge base alone, that carries the gain: on ScienceWorld, gpt-4-turbo scores 66.90 with the knowledge base and an off-the-shelf embedder, but 76.25 after the 0.56-billion-parameter embedder is contrastively fine-tuned. The author's interpretation is that fine-tuning teaches the embedder to bind current environmental context to reusable experiential sub-goals, and the ablation supports this: jointly retrieving both knowledge types gives only 1.07 percent without tuning, but 10.33 percent with it.

Load-bearing premise

The result relies entirely on the assumption that the expert trajectories used to fill and fine-tune the knowledge base come from different ScienceWorld task instances than the ones used to measure the final score, and the paper does not state that split.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central result is right, task adaptation for LLM agents no longer requires updating the decision model: a frozen LLM plus a tuned retriever suffices.
The ablation shows that the benefit comes mostly from learning to associate environmental context with experiential knowledge, not from adding knowledge alone.
Because only a 0.56-billion-parameter embedder is tuned, the method is far cheaper than tuning a multi-billion-parameter agent model, making it attractive in resource-constrained settings.
The same recipe improves gpt-4o-mini by 14.56 percent and DeepSeek-V3 by 6.27 percent, so the effect transfers across LLM backbones, though it shrinks as the backbone's base score rises.
Strong base models can even be hurt by un-tuned retrieval, implying that retrieval quality must keep pace with the decision model for the approach to help.

Reading between the lines

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

We infer that held-out evaluation would clarify the strength of the result: if the expert trajectories used to build and fine-tune the knowledge base were restricted to one set of ScienceWorld variations and scoring done on another, the 17.71 percent gain could be compared against retrieval of near-identical episodes.
We infer the same architecture should transfer to other text-based interactive benchmarks with comparable observation-action feedback loops, but the paper demonstrates it only on ScienceWorld.
We infer that the joint-fine-tuning effect is a form of representation alignment: the embedder learns to encode environmental state and experiential memory into one space, which is why off-the-shelf embedders cannot reproduce the gain at retrieval time alone.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Friend,

The thing to know about KnowMap is that the core idea is sensible — fine-tune only the 0.56B embedding model that retrieves knowledge for a frozen LLM — but the headline number is not something I'd quote. The paper never states that the expert trajectories used to populate and fine-tune the knowledge base are disjoint from the ScienceWorld task instances used for evaluation. Section 3.2 says the experiential knowledge base is 'initially populated with knowledge derived from expert trajectories through LLMs,' and Section 3.3 builds all training pairs from those same trajectories. Section 4.1 mentions that each task has over 100 variations to prevent overfitting, but doesn't say which variations are used for trajectory collection, fine-tuning, or testing. Without that split being enforced and reported, the 17.71% gain on gpt-4-turbo could be memorized retrieval of near-identical episodes rather than adaptation to new tasks. That's the load-bearing issue.

What's genuinely new and good: focusing the fine-tuning on the small retriever rather than the agent LLM is a practical and under-explored choice. The ablation in Table 3 is the most informative part of the paper — it shows that joining the two knowledge types at retrieval time gives almost nothing (1.07%) unless the embedder is fine-tuned (then 10.33%). That's a real, interesting observation. The consistent pattern across three backbones (fine-tuned retriever beats few-shot in all cases) suggests the mechanism has some teeth, even if the exact magnitudes are suspect.

The other soft spots are more ordinary: no error bars or seeds, no episode counts, the few-shot baseline may not have access to the same environmental knowledge that KnowMap's knowledge base provides, and the key hyperparameters (θ, τ, m) are missing. None of those alone would sink the paper, but together with the split question they make the quantitative claims unverifiable.

For a reader: if you work on retrieval-augmented agents, the idea is worth a skim; the evaluation is a cautionary tale about leakage. I'd send it to a serious referee because the mechanism is plausible and the leak might be fixable with a cleaner experimental setup. But I wouldn't cite the 17.71% number in anything I write until the split is clarified and the code is out.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. KnowMap proposes a retrieval-augmented agent framework for LLM task adaptation. It builds an environmental knowledge base of (entity, relation, attribute) triples and an experiential knowledge base of sub-goal units extracted by LLMs from expert trajectories; it then fine-tunes a small BGE-M3 embedding model (0.56B parameters) with an InfoNCE loss on contrastive pairs derived from those trajectories. On ScienceWorld, the authors report that fine-tuning the embedder improves gpt-4-turbo from 64.78% to 76.25% (a 17.71% relative gain), with similar gains for gpt-4o-mini and DeepSeek-V3, and they ablate the contribution of joint environmental/experiential knowledge and embedder fine-tuning.

Significance. If the reported gains are robust, KnowMap is a useful result: it shows that a relatively small, cheaply tunable retriever can improve a frozen general LLM on an interactive task, avoiding full-LLM fine-tuning, and the pattern of improvement across three backbones makes the effect more credible. The paper also presents a clear ablation isolating fine-tuning from the mere presence of the knowledge base, and it honestly reports that naive concatenation of knowledge types provides little benefit without embedding-space optimization. However, the significance is tempered by the absence of a documented train/test split between the expert trajectories used to build and fine-tune the knowledge base and the ScienceWorld episodes used for evaluation; if those overlap, the headline number largely measures memorization rather than adaptation. The lack of variance information and unreported hyperparameters further limits what can be concluded.

major comments (4)

[Sections 3.2-3.3 and 4.1] The manuscript never states whether the expert trajectories used to construct the experiential knowledge base and the Denv/Dexp fine-tuning pairs are disjoint from the ScienceWorld task variations used for evaluation. Section 3.2 says the experiential knowledge base is "initially populated with knowledge derived from expert trajectories through LLMs," Section 3.3 builds all positive and negative training pairs from those trajectories, and Section 4.1 only notes that each task has over 100 variations "to prevent overfitting" without defining which variations are used for trajectory collection, fine-tuning, and evaluation. Without an enforced split, the retriever can return sub-goals from the very episode being solved, so the 76.25 versus 64.78 gap in Table 2 may reflect memorized retrieval rather than task adaptation. This is the load-bearing premise of the headline 17.71% claim and must be resolved with an explicit split and, ideally, held-out task families.
[Section 4.1 and Tables 1-3] All scores in Tables 1-3 are single numbers without error bars, number of evaluation episodes, or random seeds. ScienceWorld is highly variable, with over 100 variations per task, and the paper's conclusion that fine-tuning "significantly" improves performance is not supported by any variance estimate or statistical test. Please report means and standard deviations over multiple seeds and a fixed evaluation set with exact variation IDs, together with the number of episodes scored.
[Section 3.3] The InfoNCE loss and training-data construction depend on several hyperparameters that are not reported: the similarity threshold theta for sub-goal pairing, the temperature tau, the negative-sample count m, and the SFT details (epochs, learning rate, batch size, number of expert trajectories, and amount of query/positive data). Without these, the central fine-tuning procedure cannot be reproduced or compared, and it is unclear whether the reported gains are sensitive to these choices.
[Section 4.1 and Table 2] The few-shot baseline in Table 2 is described only as "randomly selected examples of the same task without leveraging the KnowMap knowledge base," but KnowMap's knowledge base stores sub-goal decompositions and environment triples from expert trajectories. It is unclear how many demonstrations the few-shot baseline receives and whether it has comparable task-specific information in the prompt. If the few-shot baseline is given fewer demonstrations or less task-specific information, the 17.71% gain conflates retrieval augmentation with a simple increase in in-context information. Please match the information budget across conditions or justify the comparison.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.1] The text contains a typo: "descision-making mechanism" should be "decision-making mechanism."
[Section 3.3] The subsection heading "Find-tuning data for the experiential knowledge base" should be "Fine-tuning data for the experiential knowledge base."
[References] References [10] and [11] are the same WESE paper; the text cites WESE as [10] in the introduction and as [11] in the related work, which is confusing and should be consolidated.
[Section 4.2] The sentence "Further improvements of 13.98%, 10.95%, and 8.51% were observed with embedder fine-tuning" should state explicitly that these are relative improvements over the knowledge-base row, not the few-shot row, to avoid ambiguity.
[Table 1 and Section 4.1] Several baseline scores in Table 1 are cited from prior work (e.g., SayCan, ReAct, Reflexion, SwiftSage are marked "Reported in [13]"), yet the text claims all baselines were evaluated with gpt-4-turbo. Please clarify which numbers were reproduced under the same evaluation protocol and which are taken from the original papers with potentially different backbones or episode counts.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the reported gain is an empirical benchmark measurement, not an identity or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: construct environmental and experiential knowledge bases from expert trajectories (Sec 3.2); build supervised training pairs (queries, positives, negatives) from those trajectories (Sec 3.3); fine-tune a BGE-M3 embedding model with InfoNCE loss; then evaluate task completion on ScienceWorld (Sec 4.1). The central claim (17.71% improvement for gpt-4-turbo, Table 2) is the difference between the fine-tuned-embedder score (76.25) and the few-shot score (64.78). Nothing in the paper defines the evaluation score in terms of the InfoNCE loss or the training pairs; the loss and the benchmark score are separate quantities. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the cited works (BGE-M3, SwiftSage, ReasonPlanner, etc.) are external prior results used as baselines or components, not as justification for the central claim. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior work. The only validity concern is that no train/test split is reported between the expert trajectories used to populate and fine-tune the knowledge base and the ScienceWorld variations used for evaluation; if they overlap, part of the gain could be memorization rather than adaptation. That is a data-leakage/correctness risk, not a circularity by construction: the paper does not exhibit an equation or definitional identity making the gain equal to its input. Under the stated rules, absence of a disclosed split is not, by itself, a circular step.

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

The central claim rests on several unstated modeling choices: availability and quality of expert trajectories; interaction-based positive sampling; embedding-based sub-goal similarity; and a missing train/test split. No code or hyperparameters are provided, so these assumptions cannot be checked from the artifact.

free parameters (5)

similarity threshold theta for sub-goal pairing = not reported
Used in Section 3.3 to create positive training pairs for experiential knowledge; its value changes the training set composition and therefore the downstream score.
InfoNCE temperature tau = not reported
Appears in the contrastive loss in Section 3.3; standard sensitive hyperparameter.
negative sample count m per instance = not reported
Controls the contrastive training difficulty; defined in Section 3.3 but no value is given.
SFT hyperparameters (epochs, learning rate, batch size) = not reported
Fine-tuning setup is omitted, so the training procedure cannot be reproduced or checked for stability.
number of expert trajectories used to seed the experiential knowledge base = not reported
The knowledge base is populated from expert trajectories, but the quantity and source of those trajectories are not stated.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Expert trajectories used to construct the experiential knowledge base are available and represent successful task solutions.
The whole fine-tuning protocol in Section 3.3 is built on replaying expert trajectories; the paper gives no evidence about trajectory source or quality.
domain assumption Interacted objects in a sub-goal are a sufficient proxy for the knowledge relevant to that sub-goal; all other knowledge is a valid negative.
Positive and negative samples for environmental knowledge in Section 3.3 are defined by object interaction, a heuristic that can miss relevant knowledge and can label incidental interactions as relevant.
domain assumption Cosine similarity of action trajectories computed by a general embedding model identifies semantically matching sub-goals.
Used in Section 3.3 to form positive pairs for experiential knowledge; never validated against human judgment or task outcomes.
domain assumption LLM-based decomposition of trajectories into sub-goals is faithful and complete.
Experiential knowledge units are extracted by LLMs; the prompt is deferred to an appendix that is not included in the arXiv v1 text.
domain assumption The agent scaffold's planner, actuator, and evaluator prompts function as assumed; only the retrieval component is evaluated in isolation.
No prompt details or scaffold ablations are provided in the main text.
standard math Contrastive InfoNCE loss is a standard objective that improves retrieval quality for this setting.
Standard approach used in many retrieval and embedding papers; not a flaw.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of KnowMap: Efficient Knowledge-Driven Task Adaptation for LLMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7LCUWCPG

@misc{pith2026250619527,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: KnowMap: Efficient Knowledge-Driven Task Adaptation for LLMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7LCUWCPG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19527}
}

read the original abstract

While Large Language Models (LLMs) possess significant capabilities in open-world agent tasks, they also face challenges in rapidly adapting to new, specialized tasks due to their reliance on static pre-trained knowledge. Traditional methods such as fine-tuning are often costly, data-intensive, and may lead to "catastrophic forgetting." Therefore, we present KnowMap, a novel approach that dynamically constructs a knowledge base from environmental and experiential data. KnowMap fine-tunes a small knowledge-embedding model to equip a larger LLM with valuable task-specific knowledge. Our experiments on the ScienceWorld benchmark demonstrate 17.71% improvement for the performance of gpt-4-turbo model. KnowMap not only provides an efficient and effective means for LLM task-adapting, but also highlights how integrating environmental and experiential knowledge can enhance LLMs' reasoning capabilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19527 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** KnowMap framework overview. Black arrows represent the agent’s decision-making and interaction processes, red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Construction of knowledge bases in KnowMap. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

[1]

Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yevgen Chebotar, Omar Cortes, Byron David, Chelsea Finn, Chuyuan Fu, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Haus- man, et al . 2022. Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691(2022)

arXiv 2022
[2]

Prithviraj Ammanabrolu and Mark Riedl. 2021. Learning knowledge graph-based world models of textual environments.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems34 (2021), 3720–3731

work page 2021
[3]

Petr Anokhin, Nikita Semenov, Artyom Sorokin, Dmitry Evseev, Andrey Kravchenko, Mikhail Burtsev, and Evgeny Burnaev. 2024. Arigraph: Learning knowledge graph world models with episodic memory for llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04363(2024)

arXiv 2024
[4]

Mattia Atzeni, Shehzaad Dhuliawala, Keerthiram Murugesan, and Mrinmaya Sachan. 2021. Case-based reasoning for better generalization in textual reinforce- ment learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08470(2021)

work page Pith review arXiv 2021
[5]

Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners.Advances in neural information processing systems33 (2020), 1877–1901

2020
[6]

Jianlv Chen, Shitao Xiao, Peitian Zhang, Kun Luo, Defu Lian, and Zheng Liu. 2024. Bge m3-embedding: Multi-lingual, multi-functionality, multi-granularity text embeddings through self-knowledge distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03216 (2024)

arXiv 2024
[7]

Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Yunxuan Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2024. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models.Journal of Machine Learning Research25, 70 (2024), 1–53

2024
[8]

Minh Pham Dinh, Munira Syed, Michael G Yankoski, and Trenton W Ford. 2024. ReasonPlanner: Enhancing Autonomous Planning in Dynamic Environments with Temporal Knowledge Graphs and LLMs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09252 (2024)

arXiv 2024

Show all 20 references

[9]

Maryam Hashemzadeh, Elias Stengel-Eskin, Sarath Chandar, and Marc-Alexandre Cote. 2024. Sub-goal Distillation: A Method to Improve Small Language Agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02749(2024)

2024 arXiv
[11]

Xu Huang, Weiwen Liu, Xiaolong Chen, Xingmei Wang, Defu Lian, Yasheng Wang, Ruiming Tang, and Enhong Chen. 2024. Wese: Weak exploration to strong exploitation for llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07456(2024)

2024 arXiv
[12]

Jinhao Jiang, Kun Zhou, Wayne Xin Zhao, Yang Song, Chen Zhu, Hengshu Zhu, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2024. Kg-agent: An efficient autonomous agent framework for complex reasoning over knowledge graph.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11163 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[13]

Bill Yuchen Lin, Yicheng Fu, Karina Yang, Faeze Brahman, Shiyu Huang, Chandra Bhagavatula, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, Yejin Choi, and Xiang Ren. 2023. Swift- sage: A generative agent with fast and slow thinking for complex interactive tasks.Advances in Neural Information Processi...

2023
[14]

Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. 2023. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36 (2023), 8634–8652

2023
[15]

Chan Hee Song, Jiaman Wu, Clayton Washington, Brian M Sadler, Wei-Lun Chao, and Yu Su. 2023. Llm-planner: Few-shot grounded planning for embodied agents with large language models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. 2998–3009

2023
[16]

Georgios Tziafas and Hamidreza Kasaei. 2024. Lifelong robot library learning: Bootstrapping composable and generalizable skills for embodied control with lan- guage models. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 515–522

2024
[17]

Ruoyao Wang, Peter Jansen, Marc-Alexandre Côté, and Prithviraj Ammanabrolu
[18]

Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems35 (2022), 24824–24837

2022
[19]

Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2023. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

2023
[20]

Andrew Zhao, Daniel Huang, Quentin Xu, Matthieu Lin, Yong-Jin Liu, and Gao Huang. 2024. Expel: Llm agents are experiential learners. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 38. 19632–19642

2024
[2022]

Scienceworld: Is your agent smarter than a 5th grader?arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.07540(2022)

2022 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yevgen Chebotar, Omar Cortes, Byron David, Chelsea Finn, Chuyuan Fu, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Haus- man, et al . 2022. Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691(2022)

arXiv 2022

[2] [2]

Prithviraj Ammanabrolu and Mark Riedl. 2021. Learning knowledge graph-based world models of textual environments.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems34 (2021), 3720–3731

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Petr Anokhin, Nikita Semenov, Artyom Sorokin, Dmitry Evseev, Andrey Kravchenko, Mikhail Burtsev, and Evgeny Burnaev. 2024. Arigraph: Learning knowledge graph world models with episodic memory for llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04363(2024)

arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

Mattia Atzeni, Shehzaad Dhuliawala, Keerthiram Murugesan, and Mrinmaya Sachan. 2021. Case-based reasoning for better generalization in textual reinforce- ment learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08470(2021)

work page Pith review arXiv 2021

[5] [5]

Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners.Advances in neural information processing systems33 (2020), 1877–1901

2020

[6] [6]

Jianlv Chen, Shitao Xiao, Peitian Zhang, Kun Luo, Defu Lian, and Zheng Liu. 2024. Bge m3-embedding: Multi-lingual, multi-functionality, multi-granularity text embeddings through self-knowledge distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03216 (2024)

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Yunxuan Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2024. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models.Journal of Machine Learning Research25, 70 (2024), 1–53

2024

[8] [8]

Minh Pham Dinh, Munira Syed, Michael G Yankoski, and Trenton W Ford. 2024. ReasonPlanner: Enhancing Autonomous Planning in Dynamic Environments with Temporal Knowledge Graphs and LLMs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09252 (2024)

arXiv 2024