Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Review-Then-Refine: A Dynamic Framework for Multi-Hop Question Answering with Temporal Adaptability

T0 review · 6 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A review-then-refine loop beats retrieve-then-read on time-sensitive multi-hop questions.

desk verdict Plausible framework, but headline numbers are undermined by internal contradictions in the evaluation; deserves refereeing for major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15101 v1 pith:IE7VLHGX submitted 2024-12-19 cs.CL

Xiangsen Chen , Xuming Hu , Nan Tang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords multi-hopquestionansweringretrieval-augmentedgenerationtemporalreasoningdynamicqueryrewritingadaptiveretrievalhallucinationmitigationdecomposition
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 is trying to establish that the standard retrieve-then-read pipeline, which fetches documents first and then answers, is the wrong order for multi-hop questions whose answers change over time. Its central claim is that inserting a review phase—decomposing the question into sub-queries, rewriting each one with an explicit time anchor, and deciding per sub-query whether retrieval is needed—followed by a refine phase that merges intermediate answers, improves accuracy and reduces fabricated or misleading content. If true, this gives a practical recipe for keeping large language models current on time-sensitive questions without fetching documents at every step. The strongest reported evidence is on FreshQA, where the method reaches 70.68% single-hop and 60.60% multi-hop accuracy with GPT-3.5-turbo, ahead of all compared baselines.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the review-loop state machine: at each step the model $M_\theta$ takes the original query $Q$ and history $H_i$ and produces both the next sub-query and an anticipated answer, $q_i,\tilde a_i = M_\theta(Q,H_i)$. The retrieval indicator $I(q_i,H_i)\in\{0,1\}$ is the gate that decides whether to call the retriever or rely on internal knowledge; reasoning states evolve as $s_{i+1}=T(s_i,q_i,a_i,D_i)$. The refine phase's aggregation function $A$ then fuses the intermediate answers into the final answer. This machinery is what lets the framework attach temporal anchors to each hop and avoid fetching documents for hops the model already knows.

What would settle it

Measure the retrieval indicator's calibration: run the method on a sample of FreshQA sub-queries, record every $I(q_i,H_i)=0$ decision, and check whether the model's internally generated answer agrees with a verified answer from the current web corpus. A high error rate on those skipped hops would show the adaptive-retrieval mechanism is not reliably detecting when external knowledge is needed, and the reported accuracy would then rest on something other than the framework's stated hallucination-reduction claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that multi-hop QA with temporal information is better served by a review-then-refine loop than by retrieve-then-read. In the review phase the model generates a chain of sub-queries $q_i = f_i(Q,H_i)$ conditioned on the original question and the reasoning history $H_i$, rewrites them to carry an explicit time context, and uses a retrieval indicator $I(q_i,H_i)$ to decide between external search and internal knowledge. In the refine phase the intermediate answers $\{a_1,\ldots,a_n\}$ are aggregated into the final answer $A_f=A(\{a_1,\ldots,a_n\})$. The paper reports that with GPT-3.5-turbo this design reaches 70.68% single-hop and 60.60% multi-hop accuracy on FreshQA, surpassing all baselines, and also improves over baselines on PAT-Questions, MultiHopRAG, and 2WikiMultiHopQA.

Load-bearing premise

The language model can reliably decide, on its own, whether it needs to look something up before answering each sub-query; if that self-assessment is miscalibrated, the framework will skip needed searches or fetch irrelevant documents and the claimed hallucination reduction collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Removing the dynamic rewrite module drops FreshQA multi-hop accuracy from 60.60% to 55.62%, so the temporal rewriting step is doing real work.
  • Removing query decomposition drops FreshQA multi-hop accuracy to 48.72% and PAT-Questions multi-hop accuracy to 15.46%, so decomposition is the largest single contributor on dynamic benchmarks.
  • Removing the retrieval module drops PAT-Questions multi-hop accuracy from 27.59% to 16.03%, confirming that external evidence remains necessary even when internal reasoning is strong.
  • The same pipeline transfers to static multi-hop benchmarks, where it is competitive with or ahead of DSPy on MultiHopRAG and 2WikiMultiHopQA.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: because the retrieval indicator is a single LLM self-assessment, the framework's gains could be made more robust by calibrating that decision against a small labeled set of sub-queries; the paper neither trains nor evaluates such a calibrator.
  • Inference: a natural stress test is to run the method on questions whose answers change more than once within the corpus window; if dynamic rewriting always anchors to one date, competing temporal anchors could produce conflicting intermediate answers.
  • Inference: the same two-phase loop could be applied to continuously updated knowledge bases, where the rewrite step could explicitly target the most recent snapshot; the paper does not explore this setting.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

6 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes review-then-refine, a two-phase framework for multi-hop question answering with temporal information. In the review phase, a complex query is decomposed into sub-queries that are dynamically rewritten using the current reasoning history, and an adaptive retrieval indicator decides whether to call an external retriever for each sub-query; in the refine phase, intermediate answers are aggregated into a final answer. The framework is evaluated on FreshQA, PAT-Questions, MultiHopRAG, and 2WikiMultiHopQA using GPT-3.5-turbo, with additional results on GPT-4o-mini, and the authors report improvements over baselines such as DSPy, RAT, ReAct, and Freshprompt. The paper includes a formalization of the pipeline, ablation studies, case studies, and prompt templates, but no code or data release.

Significance. If the reported results are correct, the framework is a practically useful combination of query decomposition, temporal query rewriting, and adaptive retrieval that could improve multi-hop QA on time-sensitive benchmarks. The paper's strengths are its clear ablation design, the inclusion of case studies, and additional experiments on a second base model, which suggest the method is not restricted to a single LLM. However, the empirical claims currently rest on several internal inconsistencies in the experimental reporting, so the headline state-of-the-art claims are not yet verifiable. The methodological idea is incremental but reasonable; the main risk is whether the evaluation protocol measures what is claimed.

major comments (6)
  1. [§4.1, Table 2] Section 4.1 states that 'FreshQA consists of 377 questions' and immediately says 'We evaluated the dataset with 600 questions.' This is not a cosmetic discrepancy: if the 600-question set is not the standard FreshQA benchmark or is a differently filtered split, the comparisons against baselines in Table 3 are uncontrolled. Please specify the exact source, filtering, and split of the 600-question set, and if the official benchmark is 377 questions, report results on that official set as well.
  2. [§4.4, Table 3] The prose reports '39.02% multi-hop accuracy' for PAT-Questions, but Table 3 lists 39.02 as single-hop accuracy and 27.59 as multi-hop accuracy; the baseline values cited in that paragraph (DSPy 35.84, RAT 35.29) are also in the single-hop column. Because the headline comparison in this paragraph uses the wrong metric column, the claimed improvement on PAT-Questions is not established. Correct the metric labels and re-state the comparisons, or re-run the analysis on the intended column.
  3. [§4.3, Table 3] The definition of single-hop accuracy is ambiguous for FreshQA and PAT-Questions, which do not provide gold sub-questions. Section 4.3 says single-hop accuracy evaluates 'individual sub-questions within the overall multi-hop task,' but no sub-question annotations or automatic decomposition evaluation are described. Please specify how questions were assigned to the single-hop/multi-hop buckets and how the single-hop answers were scored.
  4. [Table 2 vs. Appendix A] Table 2 sets top-k to 5 for FreshQA, while Appendix A says k is 'typically set to 2 or 3 depending on the task.' The paper never resolves this discrepancy or reports per-dataset retrieval configurations. Since top-k materially affects retrieval quality, the experimental setup is not reproducible as written; provide exact hyperparameters, seeds, and code or a detailed protocol.
  5. [§3.1, §4.5] The adaptive retrieval mechanism assumes the LLM's self-assessment of whether its internal knowledge suffices is reliable. No experiment measures the agreement between the retrieval indicator and the actual need for retrieval, nor is there an oracle-retrieval or always-retrieve control. Without such a check, the claim that adaptive retrieval reduces hallucinations is not directly supported.
  6. [§4.4, §5] The conclusion that the method achieves state-of-the-art results on all evaluated benchmarks is overstated: on 2WikiMultiHopQA in Table 3, DSPy achieves a higher F1 (45.06 vs. 44.28), and the accuracy advantage is only 0.52 points. Please qualify the state-of-the-art claim to the datasets and metrics where it strictly holds.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1] The notation is inconsistent: equation (1) says qi and ai are generated by Mθ, while equation (3) defines qi = fi(Q,Hi) without specifying how fi relates to Mθ.
  2. [Appendix D] The text says sample prompts 'should be included with corresponding exemplars in Table 2,' but no exemplars appear; include the actual few-shot exemplars used.
  3. [Throughout] There are numerous grammatical errors and typos (e.g., 'a adaptive retrieval mechanism,' 'we experimented experiments'), which should be corrected.
  4. [References] Some baselines are cited via arXiv preprint identifiers without venue details; for example, the RAT, Self-RAG, and Adaptive-RAG entries should be checked for final published versions.
  5. [Table 4] In the 'Without dynamic rewrite' row, the MultiHopRAG accuracy drop is only 0.29 points (47.25 to 46.96), so the text's claim of a 'significant performance decrease' overstates the effect; soften the language or provide significance testing.
  6. [Appendix E] The case studies in Tables 8 and 9 are illustrative but not accompanied by counts of how often such reasoning paths succeed; consider reporting error analysis frequencies.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the framework is an empirical pipeline, its Section 3 equations are descriptive formalizations, and no fitted parameter or self-citation chain supplies the reported benchmark results.

full rationale

The paper does not derive any measured quantity from its own definitions. Equations (1)-(4) formalize the review-then-refine pipeline (sub-query generation, retrieval indicator, state transition, and aggregation) but they are descriptive accounts of the implemented LLM procedure, not derivations that force the reported accuracies. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then reported as a prediction; the benchmark numbers in Tables 3 and 5 are direct evaluations against external datasets (FreshQA, PAT-Questions, MultiHopRAG, 2WikiMultiHopQA). I find no load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem: the cited prior work supplies datasets, baselines, and background claims, while the central novelty claim rests on the experiments. The manuscript's own Limitation section concedes dependence on retrieval quality and internal-knowledge freshness, which are validity and robustness concerns rather than circularity. The Section 4.1 FreshQA discrepancy (first saying 'FreshQA consists of 377 questions' and then saying 'We evaluated the dataset with 600 questions') and the Section 4.4 PAT-Questions metric mislabel (calling 39.02% multi-hop accuracy when Table 3 lists it as single-hop accuracy) are report-quality and reproducibility problems that should be corrected, but they do not make any result definitionally equivalent to an input. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no physical entities or fitted theoretical constants. Its load-bearing assumptions are behavioral (LLM self-assessment reliability, corpus timeliness) and procedural (dataset subsampling, top-k choice), summarized above.

free parameters (2)
  • top-k retrieval count = 5 for FreshQA, 3 for 2WikiMultiHopQA and MultiHopRAG (Table 2); 'typically 2 or 3' in Appendix A
    The number of documents retrieved per sub-query is chosen per dataset without justification or sensitivity analysis, and the appendix contradicts Table 2.
  • number of sub-query steps / stopping rule = not specified
    The decomposition terminates when the LLM decides the path is complete; no maximum is defined and the stopping behavior is not evaluated.
assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper The LLM can reliably decompose multi-hop questions and judge whether its internal knowledge suffices for each sub-query (retrieval indicator I).
    Section 3.1 defines I(qi, Hi) as the decision to retrieve, but no evidence is given that LLM self-assessment is calibrated; the hallucination-reduction claim depends on this.
  • domain assumption The external corpora contain up-to-date documents covering the temporal anchor of each query.
    Appendix A states dynamic tasks use 'a broader set of web sources, including more recently updated documents' without specifying the corpus snapshot or update mechanism; the temporal QA results depend on this.
  • domain assumption The benchmark splits (random 500-example subsets for PAT-Questions, 2WikiMultiHopQA, MultiHopRAG) are representative and the metrics are computed correctly.
    Section 4.1 describes the random subsampling; no seed is given and the accuracy/F1 computation is not detailed, so the comparison relies on standard practice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Review-Then-Refine: A Dynamic Framework for Multi-Hop Question Answering with Temporal Adaptability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IE7VLHGX

@misc{pith2026241215101,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Review-Then-Refine: A Dynamic Framework for Multi-Hop Question Answering with Temporal Adaptability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IE7VLHGX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15101}
}
read the original abstract

Retrieve-augmented generation (RAG) frameworks have emerged as a promising solution to multi-hop question answering(QA) tasks since it enables large language models (LLMs) to incorporate external knowledge and mitigate their inherent knowledge deficiencies. Despite this progress, existing RAG frameworks, which usually follows the retrieve-then-read paradigm, often struggle with multi-hop QA with temporal information since it has difficulty retrieving and synthesizing accurate time-related information. To address the challenge, this paper proposes a novel framework called review-then-refine, which aims to enhance LLM performance in multi-hop QA scenarios with temporal information. Our approach begins with a review phase, where decomposed sub-queries are dynamically rewritten with temporal information, allowing for subsequent adaptive retrieval and reasoning process. In addition, we implement adaptive retrieval mechanism to minimize unnecessary retrievals, thus reducing the potential for hallucinations. In the subsequent refine phase, the LLM synthesizes the retrieved information from each sub-query along with its internal knowledge to formulate a coherent answer. Extensive experimental results across multiple datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed framework, highlighting its potential to significantly improve multi-hop QA capabilities in LLMs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15101 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of challenges in multi-hop QA with temporal information and how our proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The illustration of how the framework works. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The benefits of query-based KGQA systems for complex and temporal questions in LLM era

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A multi-stage Wikidata KGQA pipeline using small fine-tuned models generates and executes SPARQL queries, beating GPT-4o on multi-hop and temporal benchmarks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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]

    Abdelrahman Abdallah and Adam Jatowt. 2024. Generator-retriever-generator approach for open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.11278

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Akari Asai, Zeqiu Wu, Yizhong Wang, Avirup Sil, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. Self-rag: Learning to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11511

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Maciej Besta, Nils Blach, Ales Kubicek, Robert Gerstenberger, Michal Podstawski, Lukas Gianinazzi, Joanna Gajda, Tomasz Lehmann, Hubert Niewiadomski, Piotr Nyczyk, et al. 2024. Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 17682--17690

    2024

  6. [6]

    Chi-Min Chan, Chunpu Xu, Ruibin Yuan, Hongyin Luo, Wei Xue, Yike Guo, and Jie Fu. 2024. Rq-rag: Learning to refine queries for retrieval augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00610

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Reading wikipedia to answer open-domain questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.00051

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Jifan Chen, Shih-ting Lin, and Greg Durrett. 2019. Multi-hop question answering via reasoning chains. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.02610

    arXiv 2019

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Keyuan Cheng, Gang Lin, Haoyang Fei, Lu Yu, Muhammad Asif Ali, Lijie Hu, Di Wang, et al. 2024. Multi-hop question answering under temporal knowledge editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00492

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Hanxing Ding, Liang Pang, Zihao Wei, Huawei Shen, and Xueqi Cheng. 2024. Retrieve only when it needs: Adaptive retrieval augmentation for hallucination mitigation in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10612

    2024

  3. [11]

    Yue Feng, Zhen Han, Mingming Sun, and Ping Li. 2022. Multi-hop open-domain question answering over structured and unstructured knowledge. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 151--156

    2022

  4. [12]

    Xanh Ho, Anh-Khoa Duong Nguyen, Saku Sugawara, and Akiko Aizawa. 2020. Constructing a multi-hop qa dataset for comprehensive evaluation of reasoning steps. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.01060

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Soyeong Jeong, Jinheon Baek, Sukmin Cho, Sung Ju Hwang, and Jong C Park. 2024. Adaptive-rag: Learning to adapt retrieval-augmented large language models through question complexity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14403

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Zhengbao Jiang, Frank F Xu, Luyu Gao, Zhiqing Sun, Qian Liu, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig. 2023. Active retrieval augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06983

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Omar Khattab, Keshav Santhanam, Xiang Lisa Li, David Hall, Percy Liang, Christopher Potts, and Matei Zaharia. 2022. Demonstrate-search-predict: Composing retrieval and language models for knowledge-intensive nlp. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.14024

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Omar Khattab, Arnav Singhvi, Paridhi Maheshwari, Zhiyuan Zhang, Keshav Santhanam, Saiful Haq, Ashutosh Sharma, Thomas T Joshi, Hanna Moazam, Heather Miller, et al. 2024. Dspy: Compiling declarative language model calls into state-of-the-art pipelines. In The Twelfth Internatio...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Tushar Khot, Harsh Trivedi, Matthew Finlayson, Yao Fu, Kyle Richardson, Peter Clark, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2022. Decomposed prompting: A modular approach for solving complex tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02406

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Angeliki Lazaridou, Elena Gribovskaya, Wojciech Stokowiec, and Nikolai Grigorev. 2022. Internet-augmented language models through few-shot prompting for open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05115

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Vaibhav Mavi, Anubhav Jangra, and Adam Jatowt. 2022. A survey on multi-hop question answering and generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.09140

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Jannat Ara Meem, Muhammad Shihab Rashid, Yue Dong, and Vagelis Hristidis. 2024. Pat-questions: A self-updating benchmark for present-anchored temporal question-answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11034

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Pruthvi Patel, Swaroop Mishra, Mihir Parmar, and Chitta Baral. 2022. Is a question decomposition unit all we need? arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12538

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Ethan Perez, Patrick Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Kyunghyun Cho, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Unsupervised question decomposition for question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.09758

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Ofir Press, Muru Zhang, Sewon Min, Ludwig Schmidt, Noah A Smith, and Mike Lewis. 2022. Measuring and narrowing the compositionality gap in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03350

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Ansh Radhakrishnan, Karina Nguyen, Anna Chen, Carol Chen, Carson Denison, Danny Hernandez, Esin Durmus, Evan Hubinger, Jackson Kernion, Kamil \.e Luko s i \=u t \.e , et al. 2023. Question decomposition improves the faithfulness of model-generated reasoning. arXiv preprint arX...

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Keshav Santhanam, Omar Khattab, Jon Saad-Falcon, Christopher Potts, and Matei Zaharia. 2021. Colbertv2: Effective and efficient retrieval via lightweight late interaction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.01488

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yelong Shen, Minlie Huang, Nan Duan, and Weizhu Chen. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.620 Enhancing retrieval-augmented large language models with iterative retrieval-generation synergy . In Findings of the Association for Comput...

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Shamane Siriwardhana, Rivindu Weerasekera, Elliott Wen, Tharindu Kaluarachchi, Rajib Rana, and Suranga Nanayakkara. 2023. Improving the domain adaptation of retrieval augmented generation (rag) models for open domain question answering. Transactions of the Association for Comp...

    2023

  20. [28]

    Yixuan Tang and Yi Yang. 2024. Multihop-rag: Benchmarking retrieval-augmented generation for multi-hop queries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15391

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2022. Interleaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10509

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, et al. 2023. Freshllms: Refreshing large language models with search engine augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03214

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Hongru Wang, Boyang Xue, Baohang Zhou, Tianhua Zhang, Cunxiang Wang, Guanhua Chen, Huimin Wang, and Kam-fai Wong. 2024 a . Self-dc: When to retrieve and when to generate? self divide-and-conquer for compositional unknown questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13514

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Zihao Wang, Anji Liu, Haowei Lin, Jiaqi Li, Xiaojian Ma, and Yitao Liang. 2024 b . Rat: Retrieval augmented thoughts elicit context-aware reasoning in long-horizon generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05313

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    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 systems, 35:24824--24837

    2022

  26. [34]

    Jian Wu, Linyi Yang, Yuliang Ji, Wenhao Huang, B \"o rje F Karlsson, and Manabu Okumura. 2024. Gendec: A robust generative question-decomposition method for multi-hop reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11166

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Shicheng Xu, Liang Pang, Huawei Shen, Xueqi Cheng, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2024. Search-in-the-chain: Interactively enhancing large language models with search for knowledge-intensive tasks. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024, pages 1362--1373

    2024

  28. [36]

    Shi-Qi Yan, Jia-Chen Gu, Yun Zhu, and Zhen-Hua Ling. 2024. Corrective retrieval augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15884

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Tom Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2024. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  30. [38]

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2022. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Wenhao Yu, Hongming Zhang, Xiaoman Pan, Kaixin Ma, Hongwei Wang, and Dong Yu. 2023. Chain-of-note: Enhancing robustness in retrieval-augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09210

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Jiahao Zhang, Haiyang Zhang, Dongmei Zhang, Liu Yong, and Shen Huang. 2024. End-to-end beam retrieval for multi-hop question answering. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technolo...

    2024

  33. [41]

    Bowen Zhao, Zander Brumbaugh, Yizhong Wang, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Noah A Smith. 2024. Set the clock: Temporal alignment of pretrained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16797

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Ruochen Zhao, Xingxuan Li, Shafiq Joty, Chengwei Qin, and Lidong Bing. 2023. Verify-and-edit: A knowledge-enhanced chain-of-thought framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03268

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Denny Zhou, Nathanael Sch \"a rli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Claire Cui, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, et al. 2022. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10625

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.