REVIEW 1 cited by
Groundedness in Retrieval-augmented Long-form Generation: An Empirical Study
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
Groundedness in Retrieval-augmented Long-form Generation: An Empirical Study
read the original abstract
We present an empirical study of groundedness in long-form question answering (LFQA) by retrieval-augmented large language models (LLMs). In particular, we evaluate whether every generated sentence is grounded in the retrieved documents or the model's pre-training data. Across 3 datasets and 4 model families, our findings reveal that a significant fraction of generated sentences are consistently ungrounded, even when those sentences contain correct ground-truth answers. Additionally, we examine the impacts of factors such as model size, decoding strategy, and instruction tuning on groundedness. Our results show that while larger models tend to ground their outputs more effectively, a significant portion of correct answers remains compromised by hallucinations. This study provides novel insights into the groundedness challenges in LFQA and underscores the necessity for more robust mechanisms in LLMs to mitigate the generation of ungrounded content.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Deceptive Grounding: Entity Attribution Failure in Clinical Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Clinical RAG can attribute real evidence about drug Y to queried drug X at high rates under adversarial retrieval, a failure invisible to faithfulness and citation metrics but detectable by entity-attribution verification.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.