Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 33 references

RAG-PRISM: A Personalized, Rapid, and Immersive Skill Mastery Framework with Adaptive Retrieval-Augmented Tutoring

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A retrieval-augmented tutoring framework claims to generate personalized cybersecurity training on demand, with GPT-4 answering test queries with perfect faithfulness and near-perfect relevancy.

desk verdict A coherent RAG-tutor framework whose headline retrieval claims are directly contradicted by its own Table II, and whose personalization claim is untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.00646 v1 pith:XDLKXBAC submitted 2025-08-31 cs.CY cs.AI

Gaurangi Raul , Yu-Zheng Lin , Karan Patel , Bono Po-Jen Shih , Matthew W. Redondo , Banafsheh Saber Latibari , Jesus Pacheco , Soheil Salehi
show 1 more author
Pratik Satam
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords retrieval-augmentedgenerationadaptivetutoringpersonalizedlearningcybersecurityeducationfaithfulnessrelevancyhitrateMRR
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 tutoring system built on retrieval-augmented generation can create personalized, on-demand cybersecurity training without hand-crafting lessons for each learner. It combines a vector database of curated course material with an LLM that answers trainee questions using the retrieved chunks, and it evaluates that pipeline with retrieval metrics (hit rate and mean reciprocal rank) and answer-quality metrics (faithfulness and relevancy). In its test setup, the retriever found the correct source chunk for nearly all representative queries, and GPT-4 generated answers that were always faithful and relevant for about 93% of questions—one passage reports 87%. If the setup reflects real learner behavior, the result matters because it suggests a scalable path to workforce reskilling: a tutor that recommends and generates content from an existing corpus rather than requiring expensive, slow human course design. The load-bearing assumption is that LLM-generated synthetic questions and an LLM judge faithfully stand in for real trainees and human evaluation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a two-stage RAG loop built on LlamaIndex: chunks of a curated PDF corpus are embedded with OpenAI text-embedding-ada-002 into a vector index; learner queries are matched against chunks by semantic similarity, and top-k chunks are packaged with the query into a prompt for an LLM. The retriever is scored by document hit rate and mean reciprocal rank, and the generator by faithfulness and relevancy, using synthetic QA pairs as ground truth. This machinery lets the system isolate whether retrieval or generation is failing, and it is the component that actually carries the paper's personalization claim.

What would settle it

Run the same RAG pipeline with questions collected from actual novice cybersecurity trainees rather than LLM-generated QA pairs, and have human experts score the answers instead of an LLM judge. If hit rate or MRR drops below 1.0, or if human faithfulness and relevancy ratings disagree sharply with the LLM judge, the central claim of reliable retrieval and grounded generation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that its RAG-PRISM framework—an extension of an earlier PRISM architecture with retrieval-augmented generation—can act as both a personalized topic recommender and a content generator for 4IR cybersecurity education. The discovery offered in the evaluation is that the retrieval component can surface the exact supporting chunk for representative learner queries (hit rate and MRR reaching 1.0 on the reported set), and that GPT-4, when given that retrieved context, produces responses that stay grounded in the source material (faithfulness 1.0) and address the query (relevancy 0.93 in the table, 0.87 in a text passage). The paper argues this dual-mode capability—reco

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation treats LLM-generated synthetic questions and LLM-judged faithfulness/relevancy scores as stand-ins for real trainees' questions and human judgment; if real learners ask messier questions or the judge is lenient, the reported near-perfect scores would overstate actual tutoring quality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A RAG-based tutor can scale personalized cybersecurity instruction by auto-generating training content from curated documents, reducing dependence on expensive human course authoring.
  • Retrieval quality is a bottleneck, and monitoring hit rate and MRR gives a pipeline-level diagnostic that works independently of which LLM is used.
  • LLM choice matters: GPT-4 yields grounded, on-topic answers, while GPT-4 Turbo's longer responses drift in relevancy—response length alone is not quality.
  • Hybrid synthetic-plus-manual QA evaluation can catch both retrieval failures and noise-injection robustness in a single pass.
  • Because the retrieval and evaluation layers are domain-agnostic, the same pipeline could be applied to other 4IR topics beyond cybersecurity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that perfect retrieval on LLM-generated queries may not survive contact with real trainees' messy questions; a natural next experiment is to collect questions from actual learners and rerun the same metrics.
  • The reported GPT-4 relevancy appears as 0.87 in one narrative passage and 0.93 in Table IV; the discrepancy is not reconciled, and future versions should identify which number is the official average.
  • The sentiment-analysis and VR digital-twin components are described but not evaluated in this experiment, so the claimed end-to-end personalized tutoring loop remains unvalidated even if the retrieval/generation layer holds up.
  • A more informative noise-handling metric would measure how often the system correctly rejects irrelevant input rather than scoring all five noise queries as zero; the current design conflates rejection with failure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents RAG-PRISM, an extension of the PRISM tutoring framework that combines sentiment analysis, LlamaIndex-based retrieval, and GPT-3.5/GPT-4 generation for personalized 4IR cybersecurity training. It describes a synthetic QA-generation pipeline and evaluates retrieval with hit rate and MRR and generation with faithfulness and relevancy. The headline findings are that GPT-4 achieves 100% faithfulness and roughly 87–93% relevancy, and that retrieval reaches a perfect hit rate and MRR of 1.00. The paper concludes that this dual-mode approach can serve as a personalized topic recommender and content generator for scalable workforce development.

Significance. If the reported results were reliable, the paper would offer a useful demonstration that a RAG pipeline can support a domain-constrained tutoring system. The architecture is coherent, and the synthetic QA-generation approach, despite its limitations, is a reproducible starting point for automated evaluation. The paper is also transparent enough that the reader can inspect per-query retrieval scores and detect problems. However, the evidence as presented does not support the headline claims: the retrieval table contradicts the abstract/conclusion, the generation scores are internally inconsistent, and no human or real-learner validation is provided. The contribution is better characterized as a preliminary system description than as an evaluated personalized tutoring framework.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV.B, Table II; Section I; Section V] The headline retrieval claim is directly contradicted by Table II. Section I and Section V state that hit rate and MRR both reach 1.00, but Table II reports per-query scores for Q1–Q10: Q5 has MRR=0.0 and Hit/Miss=0.0, Q2 and Q10 have MRR=0.2, Q4 has MRR=0.5, and Q7 has MRR=0.333. Averaging the ten displayed MRR values gives approximately 0.62, and the displayed hit rate is 0.9, not 1.0. No explanation is given, such as reporting on a different or larger query set. Since retrieval quality is the basis for RQ1 and for the generation results, this inconsistency invalidates the paper's central quantitative claim.
  2. [Abstract; Introduction; §IV.B; Table IV] The GPT-4 generation scores are inconsistent across the manuscript. The abstract reports 87% relevancy and 100% alignment; Section I reports a relevancy score of 0.93; Section IV.B text says GPT-4 achieved a relevancy score of 0.87; Table IV lists 0.933333; and Section V says 93.3%. These are different numbers for the same headline result. Because the GPT-4 advantage is the paper's principal positive finding, the reader cannot determine which number is the result.
  3. [§IV.A.2; §IV.B; Table III] The evaluation methodology is self-referential and underpowered. Retrieval ground truth is defined as the exact chunk used to synthesize each QA pair, so the retrieval metric measures the retriever's ability to recover provenance of an LLM-generated question, not its ability to answer real trainee queries. The 'manual queries' described in §IV.A.2 are not reported in the retrieval results. For generation, Table III shows identical binary 1.0 scores for all R1–R10 responses across every model; separation comes only from five noise-injected queries (R11–R15). No evaluator (human or LLM), rubric, or confidence measure is described, and with 10–15 queries no statistical inference is possible. These issues are load-bearing for both research questions.
  4. [§III.A; §V] Personalization is claimed as a main contribution but is not tested. The experiments use a fixed set of predetermined queries; no sentiment vectors, learner models, or individual differences enter the reported evaluation. The paper's own Section V confines real-world educational settings, actual student inquiries, and learning-outcome measurement to future work. The evidence therefore does not support characterizing RAG-PRISM as a personalized tutor; it supports at most a domain-constrained QA system.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract; Section I] 'Mean Reciprocal Rank (MMR)' should be 'Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR)'; the acronym MMR is used incorrectly.
  2. [Table I; §IV.B] Table I is introduced as showing 'ten representative queries' but lists 15 queries. The text also says the same ten queries are reused in Table III, while Table III has 15 rows. Please clarify the query-set sizes and the role of Q11–Q15.
  3. [Table III] The header row is duplicated: 'R1' appears twice, making the table confusing.
  4. [§IV.A.1] Minor typos: 'LLama Indexing Serving' should likely be 'LlamaIndex Serving', and 'structued' should be 'structured'.
  5. [Figure 4; Table IV] The text near Figure 4 states GPT-4 relevancy is 0.87, conflicting with Table IV's 0.933333; the figure/text and table should be reconciled.
  6. [Table I] Several queries (Q11, Q12, Q15) concern image processing rather than cybersecurity. If these are noise-injected queries, label them as such; otherwise their inclusion in the representative query set is unexplained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the evaluation is self-contained, though the paper has serious internal reporting inconsistencies and limited external validity.

full rationale

The paper does not derive its headline numbers from its inputs by construction. The retrieval evaluation uses synthetic QA pairs generated from document chunks and checks whether the originating chunk is retrieved; this is a closed-loop retrieval benchmark, but the hit-rate and MRR values are measured, not imposed by the definition, and the paper's own Table II shows imperfect scores. The generation evaluation uses faithfulness and relevancy as LLM-judged scores, again not fitted parameters that are then renamed as predictions. The framework cites the authors' prior PRISM work as a foundation, but that citation is not load-bearing for the RAG evaluation; it supplies a sentiment-analysis module that is not exercised in the experiments. The main problems are validity and reporting issues, not circularity. The abstract and conclusion claim a perfect retrieval hit rate and MRR of 1.00, but Table II reports Q5 with MRR=0 and Hit/Miss=0 and other queries with MRR 0.2–0.5, so the displayed values average well below 1.00. Table III lists per-query scores that are all 1.0/0.0, yet Table IV reports model-specific averages (e.g., GPT-4 relevancy 0.933) that cannot follow from the displayed rows. The Future Work section itself concedes that real-student inquiries and learning-outcome measurement remain to be done, confirming that the results are preliminary. These are correctness/validity concerns, not circularity, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claims rest on three domain assumptions: that synthetic questions are realistic, that LLM self-evaluation is trustworthy, and that the document corpus is authoritative. The free parameters are standard RAG hyperparameters but are chosen by hand without justification or sensitivity checks.

free parameters (3)
  • top_k = 5
    Number of retrieved chunks per query, chosen without optimization or sensitivity analysis.
  • chunk_size = 512 tokens
    Fixed chunk size for document splitting, set by SimpleNodeParser without comparison to other sizes.
  • synthetic_queries_per_chunk = 2
    Number of QA pairs generated per chunk for the retrieval benchmark, set arbitrarily.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption LLM-generated synthetic QA pairs accurately emulate real trainee behavior and learning needs.
    Section IV.A.2 states the synthetic QA pairs 'simulate learner-level curiosity and comprehension checks' but provides no validation against actual student queries.
  • domain assumption LLM-based faithfulness and relevancy evaluations are valid measures of response quality.
    Section IV.B.1 defines faithfulness and relevancy but does not specify the judge or provide human agreement; the evaluation likely uses an LLM judge, which is not an independent ground truth.
  • domain assumption The curated cybersecurity PDF corpus is sufficient and authoritative for 4IR cybersecurity training.
    The corpus content is described only as 'structured PDF' and 'curated cybersecurity learning materials' with no details on coverage or expertise.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RAG-PRISM: A Personalized, Rapid, and Immersive Skill Mastery Framework with Adaptive Retrieval-Augmented Tutoring." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XDLKXBAC

@misc{pith2026250900646,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RAG-PRISM: A Personalized, Rapid, and Immersive Skill Mastery Framework with Adaptive Retrieval-Augmented Tutoring},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XDLKXBAC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00646}
}
read the original abstract

The rapid digital transformation of Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) systems is reshaping workforce needs, widening skill gaps, especially for older workers. With growing emphasis on STEM skills such as robotics, automation, artificial intelligence (AI), and security, large-scale re-skilling and up-skilling are required. Training programs must address diverse backgrounds, learning styles, and motivations to improve persistence and success, while ensuring rapid, cost-effective workforce development through experiential learning. To meet these challenges, we present an adaptive tutoring framework that combines generative AI with Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) to deliver personalized training. The framework leverages document hit rate and Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR) to optimize content for each learner, and is benchmarked against human-generated training for alignment and relevance. We demonstrate the framework in 4IR cybersecurity learning by creating a synthetic QA dataset emulating trainee behavior, while RAG is tuned on curated cybersecurity materials. Evaluation compares its generated training with manually curated queries representing realistic student interactions. Responses are produced using large language models (LLMs) including GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, assessed for faithfulness and content alignment. GPT-4 achieves the best performance with 87% relevancy and 100% alignment. Results show this dual-mode approach enables the adaptive tutor to act as both a personalized topic recommender and content generator, offering a scalable solution for rapid, tailored learning in 4IR education and workforce development.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.00646 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. RAG-PRISM Framework. This figure illustrates a system that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A LlamaIndex-Based Pipeline for Query Answering and Evaluation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Hybrid Evaluation Framework B. Experimental Results and Metrics In this personalized learning work, evaluation is performed on two complementary axes: the retriever’s ability to surface relevant content and the LLM’s ability to generate grounded, relevant responses. These are respectively handled by the Retriever Evaluator and the LLM Answering Evaluator. As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: LLMs Response Evaluation based on Faithfulness and Relevancy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Response length across different GPT models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The fourth industrial revolution,

    T. Philbeck and N. Davis, “The fourth industrial revolution,” Journal of International Affairs, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 17–22, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Cps-tr: An online training platform to address fourth industrial revolution workforce needs,

    P. Satam, C. Philipp, S. Shao, and S. Salehi, “Cps-tr: An online training platform to address fourth industrial revolution workforce needs,” in 2023 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 271–276

    2023

  3. [3]

    Vehicle cyber engineering (vce) testbed with claas (cyber-security labs as a service),

    M. Zachos, P. Satam, and R. Naama, “Vehicle cyber engineering (vce) testbed with claas (cyber-security labs as a service),” SAE Technical Paper, Tech. Rep., 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Personalized education with generative ai and digital twins: Vr, rag, and zero-shot sentiment analysis for industry 4.0 workforce development,

    Y .-Z. Lin, K. Petal, A. H. Alhamadah, S. Ghimire, M. W. Redondo, D. R. V . Corona, J. Pacheco, S. Salehi, and P. Satam, “Personalized education with generative ai and digital twins: Vr, rag, and zero-shot sentiment analysis for industry 4.0 workforce development,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14080, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Interactive framework for cybersecurity education and future workforce development,

    S. Ghimire, M. A. Chowdhury, R. Tsang, R. Yarnell, E. Heckert, J. Carpenter, Y .-Z. Lin, M. Mamun, R. F. DeMara, S. Rafatirad et al. , “Interactive framework for cybersecurity education and future workforce development,” in 2024 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–7

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Balancing work and learning: Implications for low-income students,

    A. P. Carnevale and N. Smith, “Balancing work and learning: Implications for low-income students,” 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Prism: A personalized, rapid, and immersive skill mastery framework for personalizing experiential learning through generative ai,

    Y .-Z. Lin, K. Patel, A. H. J. Alhamadah, B. P.-J. Shih, M. W. Redondo, D. R. V . Corona, B. S. Latibari, J. Pacheco, S. Salehi, and P. Satam, “Prism: A personalized, rapid, and immersive skill mastery framework for personalizing experiential learning through generative ai,” July 2024, 24 pages, 7 figures. Version 2, submitted 26 Jul 2025. [Online]. Avail...

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.14433 2024

  8. [8]

    Smart environment for adaptive learning of cybersecurity skills,

    J. Vykopal, P. Seda, V . ˇSv´abensk`y, and P. ˇCeleda, “Smart environment for adaptive learning of cybersecurity skills,” IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 443–456, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Wids: An anomaly based intrusion detection system for wi-fi (ieee 802.11) protocol,

    P. Satam and S. Hariri, “Wids: An anomaly based intrusion detection system for wi-fi (ieee 802.11) protocol,” IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management , vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1077–1091, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Artificial neural networks-based intrusion detection system for internet of things fog nodes,

    J. Pacheco, V . H. Benitez, L. C. Felix-Herran, and P. Satam, “Artificial neural networks-based intrusion detection system for internet of things fog nodes,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 73 907–73 918, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Hwrex: Ai-enabled hardware weakness and risk exploration and storytelling framework with llm-assisted mitigation suggestion,

    S. Ghimire, Y .-Z. Lin, M. Mamun, M. A. Chowdhury, F. Alemi, S. Cai, J. Guo, M. Zhu, H. Li, B. Saber Latibari et al. , “Hwrex: Ai-enabled hardware weakness and risk exploration and storytelling framework with llm-assisted mitigation suggestion,” ACM Transactions on Design Auto...

    2025

  4. [12]

    Anomaly behavior analysis of dns protocol

    P. Satam, H. R. Alipour, Y . B. Al-Nashif, and S. Hariri, “Anomaly behavior analysis of dns protocol.” J. Internet Serv. Inf. Secur. , vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 85–97, 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    Hardware design and security needs attention: From survey to path forward,

    S. Ghimire, M. A. Chowdhury, B. S. Latibari, M. Mamun, J. W. Carpenter, B. Tan, H. Pearce, K. Chakrabarty, P. Satam, and S. Salehi, “Hardware design and security needs attention: From survey to path forward,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08854 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    The fourth industrial revolution: what it means, how to respond1,

    K. Schwab, “The fourth industrial revolution: what it means, how to respond1,” in Handbook of research on strategic leadership in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2024, pp. 29–34

    2024

  7. [15]

    V oluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-ecological theory of school performance with some implications for education,

    J. U. Ogbu and H. D. Simons, “V oluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-ecological theory of school performance with some implications for education,” in The new immigrants and American schools . Routledge, 2022, pp. 1–34

    2022

  8. [16]

    Understanding intrinsic challenges to stem instructional practices for chinese teachers based on their beliefs and knowledge base,

    Y . Dong, J. Wang, Y . Yang, and P. M. Kurup, “Understanding intrinsic challenges to stem instructional practices for chinese teachers based on their beliefs and knowledge base,” International Journal of STEM Education, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 47, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Which stem majors enroll in online courses, and why should we care? the impact of ethnicity, gender, and non-traditional student characteristics,

    C. Wladis, A. C. Hachey, and K. Conway, “Which stem majors enroll in online courses, and why should we care? the impact of ethnicity, gender, and non-traditional student characteristics,” Computers & Education , vol. 87, pp. 285–308, 2015

    2015

  10. [18]

    Development of a task-oriented chatbot application for monitoring taiwan photon source front-end system,

    Y .-Z. Lin, J.-Y . Chuang, I.-C. Sheng, Y . T. Cheng, C.-C. Chang, Y .-C. Yang, H.-P. Hsueh, and C.-H. Huang, “Development of a task-oriented chatbot application for monitoring taiwan photon source front-end system,” in Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Emergin...

    2018

  11. [19]

    A smart chatbot architecture based nlp and machine learning for health care assistance,

    S. Ayanouz, B. A. Abdelhakim, and M. Benhmed, “A smart chatbot architecture based nlp and machine learning for health care assistance,” in Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on networking, information systems & security , 2020, pp. 1–6

    2020

  12. [20]

    Photogrammetry for digital twinning industry 4.0 (i4) systems,

    A. Alhamadah, M. Mamun, H. Harms, M. Redondo, Y .-Z. Lin, J. Pacheco, S. Salehi, and P. Satam, “Photogrammetry for digital twinning industry 4.0 (i4) systems,” in 2024 IEEE/ACS 21st International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  13. [21]

    Towards faithfully interpretable nlp systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?

    A. Jacovi and Y . Goldberg, “Towards faithfully interpretable nlp systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?” arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.03685, 2020

    2004 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks,

    P. Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, V . Karpukhin, N. Goyal, H. K ¨uttler, M. Lewis, W.-t. Yih, T. Rockt ¨aschel et al. , “Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 33, pp. 9459–9474, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    A survey on rag meeting llms: Towards retrieval-augmented large language models,

    W. Fan, Y . Ding, L. Ning, S. Wang, H. Li, D. Yin, T.-S. Chua, and Q. Li, “A survey on rag meeting llms: Towards retrieval-augmented large language models,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , 2024, pp. 6491–6501

    2024

  16. [24]

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

    Y . Gao, Y . Xiong, X. Gao, K. Jia, J. Pan, Y . Bi, Y . Dai, J. Sun, H. Wang, and H. Wang, “Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997 , vol. 2, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Empowering llms by hybrid retrieval-augmented generation for domain-centric q&a in smart manufacturing,

    Y . Wan, Z. Chen, Y . Liu, C. Chen, and M. Packianather, “Empowering llms by hybrid retrieval-augmented generation for domain-centric q&a in smart manufacturing,” Advanced Engineering Informatics , vol. 65, p. 103212, 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    A retrieval-augmented generation approach for data-driven energy infrastructure digital twins,

    S. Ieva, D. Loconte, G. Loseto, M. Ruta, F. Scioscia, D. Marche, and M. Notarnicola, “A retrieval-augmented generation approach for data-driven energy infrastructure digital twins,” Smart Cities , vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 3095–3120, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Colbert: Efficient and effective passage search via contextualized late interaction over bert,

    O. Khattab and M. Zaharia, “Colbert: Efficient and effective passage search via contextualized late interaction over bert,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.12832

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    The faiss library,

    M. Douze, A. Guzhva, C. Deng, J. Johnson, G. Szilvasy, P.-E. Mazar ´e, M. Lomeli, L. Hosseini, and H. J´egou, “The faiss library,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.08281, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Emergent abilities of large language models,

    J. Wei, Y . Tay, R. Bommasani, C. Raffel, B. Zoph, S. Borgeaud, D. Yogatama, M. Bosma, D. Zhou, D. Metzler, E. H. Chi, T. Hashimoto, O. Vinyals, P. Liang, J. Dean, and W. Fedus, “Emergent abilities of large language models,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.07682

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Benchmarking large language models in retrieval-augmented generation,

    J. Chen, H. Lin, X. Han, and L. Sun, “Benchmarking large language models in retrieval-augmented generation,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 38, no. 16, 2024, pp. 17 754–17 762

    2024

  23. [31]

    Extraction of pdf table data based on the pdfplumber method,

    W. Yang, F. Cao, and X. Zhao, “Extraction of pdf table data based on the pdfplumber method,” in Proceedings of the 2024 4th International Joint Conference on Robotics and Artificial Intelligence , 2024, pp. 103–106

    2024

  24. [32]

    Learning to rank for information retrieval,

    T.-Y . Liu et al., “Learning to rank for information retrieval,” Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 225–331, 2009

    2009

  25. [33]

    Synchronous faithfulness monitoring for trustworthy retrieval-augmented generation,

    D. Wu, J.-C. Gu, F. Yin, N. Peng, and K.-W. Chang, “Synchronous faithfulness monitoring for trustworthy retrieval-augmented generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13692 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.