REVIEW 1 cited by
Do Retrieval-Augmented Language Models Adapt to Varying User Needs?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Recent advancements in Retrieval-Augmented Language Models (RALMs) have demonstrated their efficacy in knowledge-intensive tasks. However, existing evaluation benchmarks often assume a single optimal approach to leveraging retrieved information, failing to account for varying user needs. This paper introduces a novel evaluation framework that systematically assesses RALMs under three user need cases-Context-Exclusive, Context-First, and Memory-First-across three distinct context settings: Context Matching, Knowledge Conflict, and Information Irrelevant. By varying both user instructions and the nature of retrieved information, our approach captures the complexities of real-world applications where models must adapt to diverse user requirements. Through extensive experiments on multiple QA datasets, including HotpotQA, DisentQA, and our newly constructed synthetic URAQ dataset, we find that restricting memory usage improves robustness in adversarial retrieval conditions but decreases peak performance with ideal retrieval results and model family dominates behavioral differences. Our findings highlight the necessity of user-centric evaluations in the development of retrieval-augmented systems and provide insights into optimizing model performance across varied retrieval contexts. We will release our code and URAQ dataset upon acceptance of the paper.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Conversational Search: From Fundamentals to Frontiers in the LLM Era
A four-page proposal for a SIGIR 2025 half-day tutorial connecting conversational search fundamentals with LLM-era techniques; it contains no new experiments, data, or results.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.