Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 69 references

Multiple Abstraction Level Retrieve Augment Generation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Retrieving chunks at four abstraction levels improves AI-evaluated answer correctness by 25.739% on glycoscience papers.

desk verdict Structure-aware multi-level chunking is a plausible incremental idea, but the 25.739% headline is a mismatch with the paper's own ablation, and the AI-generated/AI-judged evaluation makes the reported gain unverifiable. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16952 v1 pith:GLFMBKVS submitted 2025-01-28 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

Zheng Zheng (1) , Xinyi Ni (1) , Pengyu Hong (1) ((1) Brandeis University) This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords retrieval-augmentedgenerationmulti-abstraction-levelchunkinghierarchicaldocumentindexingglycosciencequestionansweringLLMevaluationmap-reducesummarization
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 retrieval-augmented generation system can answer questions about specialized scientific papers more accurately if it retrieves chunks at several levels of abstraction—multi-sentence, paragraph, section, and document—instead of fixed-size chunks. It claims this multiple-abstraction-level approach, called MAL-RAG, improves AI-evaluated answer correctness by 25.739% on a glycoscience literature dataset. The authors argue that different questions need different granularities of evidence, and that higher-level summaries mitigate the 'lost in the middle' problem. A sympathetic reader would care because it offers a structural, content-preserving way to index scientific documents that does not rely on learned groupings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a four-level hierarchical chunk index: multi-sentence and paragraph chunks retain original text, while section and document chunks are map-reduce summaries generated by an open-source LLM. Retrieval uses cosine similarity from a pretrained embedding model, softmax normalization, and a cumulative probability threshold to select chunks within a 10,000-word context budget. This lets the system mix detailed and summarized evidence in response to a question.

What would settle it

Run the same MAL-RAG and vanilla RAG pipelines on a human-curated set of glycoscience questions, with answers scored blind by glycoscience experts; if the correct-answer rate rises by much less than 25% or not at all, the headline claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that indexing scientific papers at four abstraction levels—document, section, paragraph, and multi-sentence—and retrieving evidence from all levels together yields more correct answers to domain questions than retrieving from any single level. In experiments on 800 generated question-answer pairs from 7,652 glycoscience papers, MAL-RAG outperformed the best single-level retrieval scheme by 1–7% across metrics and beat a vanilla fixed-size RAG by 25.739% on AI-evaluated answer correctness. The paper attributes the gain to combining detailed chunks for facts with map-reduce summaries for context, plus a softmax probability threshold that limits retrieval noise.

Load-bearing premise

The reported improvement rests on the assumption that LLM-generated questions and LLM-based statement-overlap scoring faithfully measure answer correctness; if human experts would judge differently, the 25.739% gain could be an artifact of AI-generated evaluation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If MAL-RAG is right, fixed-size chunking leaves correct answers on the table for scientific question answering, and structure-aware indexing is a low-cost fix.
  • The map-reduce summarization scheme should transfer to other sectioned documents, such as patents, textbooks, and clinical guidelines, without retraining.
  • The cumulative-probability threshold offers a principled way to balance retrieval noise against context length in long-context LLMs.
  • The 800-pair glycoscience dataset provides a reusable benchmark for RAG evaluation in specialized scientific domains.
  • Combining multiple abstraction levels with graph- or tree-based retrieval could further improve context selection.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the questions and the correctness judgements are both produced by the same LLM family, the 25.739% figure may overstate real-world gains; a human-expert evaluation of the same pipeline is the natural next test.
  • The method exploits native section structure, so its advantage should shrink on documents without clear sections or with noisy formatting.
  • The same level-mixing idea could apply beyond QA, e.g., to summarization or fact-checking where some evidence is sentence-level and other evidence is document-level.
  • Ablating the summarizer (e.g., replacing the open-source LLM with a stronger or weaker one) would reveal how much of the gain comes from summary quality versus the multi-level retrieval itself.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MAL-RAG, a retrieval-augmented generation framework that indexes scientific documents at four abstraction levels (document, section, paragraph, and multi-sentence) and retrieves chunks from all levels during inference, using a similarity-based softmax with a cumulative probability threshold to control context length. The method is evaluated on a newly constructed glycoscience QA benchmark derived from 7,652 articles, with 800 QA pairs generated by GPT-4o-mini. The central claim is that MAL-RAG improves AI-evaluated answer correctness by 25.739% over 'traditional single-level RAG approaches', as stated in the Abstract and Section 6.

Significance. If validated, the core idea is useful: leveraging the inherent hierarchical structure of scientific papers for multi-granularity retrieval is a plausible and practically motivated direction, and the paper makes a concrete contribution by building a large glycoscience corpus and an accompanying QA benchmark. The framework is described in sufficient detail to be reproduced, and the use of open-source components (Vicuna-13B for summarization, Linq-Embed-Mistral for retrieval) is a strength. However, the significance is currently undercut by evaluation weaknesses: the benchmark is generated and scored by the same LLM family that produces the answers, no error bars or significance tests are reported, and the headline improvement is computed against a baseline that does not match the paper's own definition of 'single-level RAG'. These issues must be addressed before the quantitative claims can be taken at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 6; Table 2] The headline claim of a 25.739% improvement 'compared to traditional single-level RAG approaches' is not supported by the paper's own experiment definitions. The difference 68.788 - 43.049 = 25.739 matches the MAL-RAG τ=0.5 row against the Vanilla RAG row, but Vanilla RAG is defined in Section 4.1(i) as a separate sentence-splitter baseline, not as one of the Single-Abstraction-Level RAG variants listed in Section 4.1(iii). Against the best single-level variant (Multi RAG τ=0.5 at 63.046), the improvement is only 5.742 points, consistent with Section 4.2's own statement of a '1% to 7%' boost. The abstract and conclusion should be corrected to state the actual comparison baseline and the corresponding improvement.
  2. [Section 4.1; Section 3.4] The evaluation is substantially self-referential. The QA pairs are generated by GPT-4o-mini from the same chunks that the retrievers later fetch (Section 4.1), and the Ragas metrics use GPT-4o-mini to judge whether statements in the generated answer match the ground truth (Section 3.4). This creates a risk that the benchmark is biased toward answers that are similar to the LLM's own generation style and that the judge is not a neutral arbiter. The paper should include a human-evaluated subset (even a few hundred questions), report agreement with the LLM judge, or use an independent judge model from a different family; without such validation, the central quantitative claim remains unsubstantiated.
  3. [Table 2; Section 4.2] No error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported, despite the fact that the evaluation uses 800 QA pairs and stochastic LLM generation. The observed differences between MAL-RAG (68.788) and the best single-level variant (63.046) could plausibly be within noise. The authors should provide multiple independent runs, bootstrap confidence intervals over the QA pairs, or paired significance tests, and should report the variance across runs for the primary metric (Answer Correctness).
  4. [Section 3.2; Section 4.1] The probability threshold τ is a free parameter whose value (0.5) is chosen without a sensitivity analysis. The paper compares τ=0.5 against 'without τ' for each method, but does not vary τ to show that the advantage of MAL-RAG is robust to this choice. A small parameter sweep (e.g., τ ∈ {0.3, 0.5, 0.7}) would strengthen the claim that the multi-level retrieval mechanism, rather than a particular threshold, drives the improvement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2] The symbol for the probability threshold is inconsistent: the text in Section 3 refers to 'a pre-specified threshold p', but the equation and Table 2 use τ. Please unify the notation.
  2. [Equations (1) and (2)] The notation τ_i for section-level key information conflicts with the threshold τ used in Section 3.2. Consider using a different symbol, such as s_i or k_i, for the summarized section content.
  3. [Table 2] The rows labeled 'withoutτ' are not defined in the caption or the text. Please clarify whether this means no softmax threshold is applied (i.e., all chunks up to the length limit C are used) and state how that affects chunk selection.
  4. [Table 2; Section 4.1] The row 'RAG w. c' is only loosely connected to the definition in Section 4.1(ii), 'RAG with Corresponding Chunks'. The table caption should explicitly state that this row uses ground-truth chunks as retrieved context.
  5. [Section 6] The conclusion describes the QA dataset as '800 curated Q/A pairs', but Section 4.1 states they were generated by GPT-4o-mini with automatic strategies. 'Curated' overstates the process; please use 'generated' or describe any filtering steps.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No definitional circularity; the 25.739% headline is a mislabeled baseline comparison, not a result forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's claimed result is an empirical retrieval comparison, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs. The MAL-RAG pipeline (Section 3) builds hierarchical chunks by structural parsing and Vicuna-13B map-reduce summaries (Eqs. 1-2), retrieves with Linq-Embed-Mistral cosine similarity and a fixed softmax threshold (Section 3.2), and generates answers with an LLM (Eq. 4). No parameter is fit to the evaluation set and then renamed a prediction; the tau=0.5 threshold is a pre-specified setting, and the single-abstraction-level ablations are separate retrieval configurations over the same chunk database. The evaluation does use an AI-generated, AI-judged benchmark: Section 4.1 states "we generated a dataset of 1,118 Q/A pairs using GPT-4o-mini and selected 200 pairs from each level, totaling 800 pairs for the evaluation dataset," and Section 3.4 says GPT-4o-mini assesses whether two statements match. This is a genuine external-validity limitation, but it is not circular in the technical sense used here: the ground-truth statements are not defined as MAL-RAG's retrieved chunks, and the relative advantage of MAL-RAG over the per-level rows depends on retrieval behavior and is not forced by construction. The headline claim is nonetheless misaligned with the reported table: 25.739% equals 68.788 - 43.049, the gap to Vanilla RAG, which Section 4.1 item (i) defines separately from the Single-Abstraction-Level RAG variants, and Section 4.2 itself reports only a "1% to 7%" boost over those single-level rows. That is a reporting inconsistency about the baseline, not a circular derivation, and no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small set of hand-set hyperparameters (threshold tau, context length C, QA count per level) and on the assumptions that AI-generated questions and AI-scored answers are valid evaluation instruments. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced. The main burden is the self-referential evaluation, not an exotic axiom.

free parameters (3)
  • probability threshold tau = 0.5
    Cumulative softmax probability threshold for chunk selection; the paper compares tau=0.5 with no threshold but reports no tuning curve or sensitivity analysis (Section 3.2).
  • context length C = 10,000 words
    Maximum total length of selected chunks, chosen to 'ensure comparable information' across baselines (Section 4.1); no analysis of sensitivity to this value.
  • number of QA pairs per level = 200
    Dataset size selection of 200 pairs per granularity level is arbitrary and affects the stability of the reported metric (Section 4.1).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LLM-generated questions represent real expert queries in glycoscience
    All 1,118 QA pairs are created by GPT-4o-mini, not by domain experts, and no human validation is reported (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption LLM-based Ragas metrics validly measure answer correctness
    Evaluation splits both ground truth and generated answers into sentences and uses GPT-4o-mini to judge statement matches (Section 3.4).
  • domain assumption Map-reduce summarization with Vicuna-13B preserves key information
    Document and section summaries are generated by Vicuna-13B-v1.3, and the authors acknowledge in Section 5 that quality depends entirely on that model's capability.
  • ad hoc to paper Cosine similarity and softmax thresholding select useful chunks
    Retrieval uses Linq-Embed-Mistral cosine similarity plus a softmax cumulative threshold, with no comparison to other retrieval mechanisms or validation that the thresholding improves retrieval quality (Section 3.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiple Abstraction Level Retrieve Augment Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GLFMBKVS

@misc{pith2026250116952,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiple Abstraction Level Retrieve Augment Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GLFMBKVS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16952}
}
read the original abstract

A Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) model powered by a large language model (LLM) provides a faster and more cost-effective solution for adapting to new data and knowledge. It also delivers more specialized responses compared to pre-trained LLMs. However, most existing approaches rely on retrieving prefix-sized chunks as references to support question-answering (Q/A). This approach is often deployed to address information needs at a single level of abstraction, as it struggles to generate answers across multiple levels of abstraction. In an RAG setting, while LLMs can summarize and answer questions effectively when provided with sufficient details, retrieving excessive information often leads to the 'lost in the middle' problem and exceeds token limitations. We propose a novel RAG approach that uses chunks of multiple abstraction levels (MAL), including multi-sentence-level, paragraph-level, section-level, and document-level. The effectiveness of our approach is demonstrated in an under-explored scientific domain of Glycoscience. Compared to traditional single-level RAG approaches, our approach improves AI evaluated answer correctness of Q/A by 25.739\% on Glyco-related papers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16952 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of Vanilla RAG (Left) and MAL-RAG (Right). In MAL-RAG, D, S, P, and M indicate document-level chunks, section-level chunks, paragraph-level chunks, and multi￾sentence-level chunks, respectively. Vanilla RAG, which uses fixed￾length chunks, often encounters challenges such as the “lost in the middle” effect [Liu et al., 2024]. In contrast, MAL-RAG mitigates this problem by utilizing higher-level chunks enr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. MAL-RAG Pipeline. The MAL-RAG pipeline is composed of two primary stages: indexing and inference. In the indexing stage, articles are divided into multiple levels of granularity, such as document-level, section-level, paragraph-level, and multi-sentence-level text. A map-reduce approach is then used to extract key information from paragraph-level chunks, which are summarized into section-level chunks. These section-… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Generative ai text classifica- tion using ensemble llm approaches

    [Abburi et al., 2023] Harika Abburi, Michael Suesserman, Nirmala Pudota, Balaji Veeramani, Edward Bowen, and Sanmitra Bhattacharya. Generative ai text classifica- tion using ensemble llm approaches. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07755,

    arXiv 2023

  2. [5]

    Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens

    [Borgeaud et al., 2022] Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Men- sch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George Bm Van Den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, et al. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. In International conference on machine learning , pages 2206–2240. PMLR,

    work page 2022

  3. [8]

    Dense x retrieval: What retrieval granularity should we use? arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06648,

    [Chen et al., 2023] Tong Chen, Hongwei Wang, Sihao Chen, Wenhao Yu, Kaixin Ma, Xinran Zhao, Hongming Zhang, and Dong Yu. Dense x retrieval: What retrieval granularity should we use? arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06648,

    arXiv 2023

  4. [9]

    Hiqa: A hierarchical contex- tual augmentation rag for massive documents qa

    [Chen et al., 2024] Xinyue Chen, Pengyu Gao, Jiangjiang Song, and Xiaoyang Tan. Hiqa: A hierarchical contex- tual augmentation rag for massive documents qa. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01767,

    arXiv 2024

  5. [10]

    Enhancing ai-assisted group decision making through llm-powered devil’s advocate

    [Chiang et al., 2024] Chun-Wei Chiang, Zhuoran Lu, Zhuoyan Li, and Ming Yin. Enhancing ai-assisted group decision making through llm-powered devil’s advocate. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pages 103–119,

    work page 2024

  6. [11]

    Evaluation of question-answering based text summarization using llm invited paper

    [Ding et al., 2024] Junhua Ding, Huyen Nguyen, and Hai- hua Chen. Evaluation of question-answering based text summarization using llm invited paper. In 2024 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence Testing (AITest), pages 142–149. IEEE,

    work page 2024

  7. [12]

    Improving llm abilities in idiomatic translation

    [Donthi et al., 2024] Sundesh Donthi, Maximilian Spencer, Om Patel, Joon Doh, and Eid Rodan. Improving llm abilities in idiomatic translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03518,

    arXiv 2024

  8. [13]

    From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization

    [Edge et al., 2024] Darren Edge, Ha Trinh, Newman Cheng, Joshua Bradley, Alex Chao, Apurva Mody, Steven Truitt, and Jonathan Larson. From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16130,

    arXiv 2024

Show all 69 references
  1. [14]

    Determinants of llm-assisted decision-making

    [Eigner and H¨andler, 2024] Eva Eigner and Thorsten H¨andler. Determinants of llm-assisted decision-making. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17385,

    2024 arXiv

  2. [15]

    From general llm to translation: How we dramatically improve transla- tion quality using human evaluation data for llm finetun- ing

    [Elshin et al., 2024] Denis Elshin, Nikolay Karpachev, Boris Gruzdev, Ilya Golovanov, Georgy Ivanov, Alexan- der Antonov, Nickolay Skachkov, Ekaterina Latypova, Vladimir Layner, Ekaterina Enikeeva, et al. From general llm to translation: How we dramatically improve transla- ti...

    2024

  3. [16]

    ” you are an expert linguistic annotator”: Limits of llms as analyzers of abstract meaning representation

    [Ettinger et al., 2023] Allyson Ettinger, Jena D Hwang, Valentina Pyatkin, Chandra Bhagavatula, and Yejin Choi. ” you are an expert linguistic annotator”: Limits of llms as analyzers of abstract meaning representation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17793,

    2023 arXiv

  4. [17]

    Don’t hallucinate, abstain: Identifying llm knowledge gaps via multi-llm collaboration

    [Feng et al., 2024] Shangbin Feng, Weijia Shi, Yike Wang, Wenxuan Ding, Vidhisha Balachandran, and Yulia Tsvetkov. Don’t hallucinate, abstain: Identifying llm knowledge gaps via multi-llm collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00367,

    2024 arXiv

  5. [18]

    Precise zero-shot dense retrieval without relevance labels

    [Gao et al., 2022] Luyu Gao, Xueguang Ma, Jimmy Lin, and Jamie Callan. Precise zero-shot dense retrieval without relevance labels. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10496,

    2022 arXiv

  6. [19]

    Enabling large language models to gener- ate text with citations

    [Gao et al., 2023] Tianyu Gao, Howard Yen, Jiatong Yu, and Danqi Chen. Enabling large language models to gener- ate text with citations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14627,

    2023 arXiv

  7. [20]

    Harnessing the power of metadata for enhanced question retrieval in community question answering.IEEE Access, 12:65768–65779,

    [Ghasemi and Shakery, 2024] Shima Ghasemi and Azadeh Shakery. Harnessing the power of metadata for enhanced question retrieval in community question answering.IEEE Access, 12:65768–65779,

    2024

  8. [21]

    Re2g: Retrieve, rerank, generate

    [Glass et al., 2022] Michael Glass, Gaetano Rossiello, Md Faisal Mahbub Chowdhury, Ankita Rajaram Naik, Pengshan Cai, and Alfio Gliozzo. Re2g: Retrieve, rerank, generate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.06300,

    2022 arXiv

  9. [22]

    Retrieval aug- mented language model pre-training

    [Guu et al., 2020] Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Mingwei Chang. Retrieval aug- mented language model pre-training. InInternational con- ference on machine learning , pages 3929–3938. PMLR,

    2020

  10. [23]

    Metadata-based data exploration with retrieval-augmented generation for large language models

    [Hayashi et al., 2024] Teruaki Hayashi, Hiroki Sakaji, Jiayi Dai, and Randy Goebel. Metadata-based data exploration with retrieval-augmented generation for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04231,

    2024 arXiv

  11. [24]

    A survey on hallucination in large language models: Prin- ciples, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions

    [Huang et al., 2023] Lei Huang, Weijiang Yu, Weitao Ma, Weihong Zhong, Zhangyin Feng, Haotian Wang, Qiang- long Chen, Weihua Peng, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, et al. A survey on hallucination in large language models: Prin- ciples, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions. ACM T...

    2023

  12. [25]

    A comprehensive survey on evaluating large language model applications in the medi- cal industry

    [Huang et al., 2024] Yining Huang, Keke Tang, Meilian Chen, and Boyuan Wang. A comprehensive survey on evaluating large language model applications in the medi- cal industry. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15777,

    2024 arXiv

  13. [26]

    Dslr: Document refinement with sentence-level re-ranking and reconstruc- tion to enhance retrieval-augmented generation

    [Hwang et al., 2024] Taeho Hwang, Soyeong Jeong, Sukmin Cho, SeungYoon Han, and Jong C Park. Dslr: Document refinement with sentence-level re-ranking and reconstruc- tion to enhance retrieval-augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03627,

    2024 arXiv

  14. [27]

    Leveraging passage retrieval with generative mod- els for open domain question answering

    [Izacard and Grave, 2020] Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. Leveraging passage retrieval with generative mod- els for open domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.01282,

    2020 arXiv

  15. [28]

    Tc-rag: Turing-complete rag’s case study on medical llm systems

    [Jiang et al., 2024] Xinke Jiang, Yue Fang, Rihong Qiu, Haoyu Zhang, Yongxin Xu, Hao Chen, Wentao Zhang, Ruizhe Zhang, Yuchen Fang, Xu Chu, et al. Tc-rag: Turing-complete rag’s case study on medical llm systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09199,

    2024 arXiv

  16. [29]

    Long-context llms meet rag: Overcom- ing challenges for long inputs in rag

    [Jin et al., 2024a] Bowen Jin, Jinsung Yoon, Jiawei Han, and Sercan O Arik. Long-context llms meet rag: Overcom- ing challenges for long inputs in rag. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05983,

    arXiv

  17. [30]

    A comprehensive sur- vey on process-oriented automatic text summarization with exploration of llm-based methods

    [Jin et al., 2024b] Hanlei Jin, Yang Zhang, Dan Meng, Jun Wang, and Jinghua Tan. A comprehensive sur- vey on process-oriented automatic text summarization with exploration of llm-based methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02901,

  18. [31]

    Llm maybe longlm: Self-extend llm context window without tuning

    [Jin et al., 2024c] Hongye Jin, Xiaotian Han, Jingfeng Yang, Zhimeng Jiang, Zirui Liu, Chia-Yuan Chang, Huiyuan Chen, and Xia Hu. Llm maybe longlm: Self-extend llm context window without tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01325,

    arXiv

  19. [32]

    Gen- eralization through memorization: Nearest neighbor lan- guage models

    [Khandelwal et al., 2019] Urvashi Khandelwal, Omer Levy, Dan Jurafsky, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Mike Lewis. Gen- eralization through memorization: Nearest neighbor lan- guage models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.00172,

    2019 arXiv

  20. [34]

    Transllama: Llm-based simultane- ous translation system

    [Koshkin et al., 2024] Roman Koshkin, Katsuhito Sudoh, and Satoshi Nakamura. Transllama: Llm-based simultane- ous translation system. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04636,

    2024 arXiv

  21. [35]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks

    [Lewis et al., 2020] Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksan- dra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich K ¨uttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rockt¨aschel, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Info...

    2020

  22. [36]

    Dmqr- rag: Diverse multi-query rewriting for rag

    [Li et al., 2024b] Zhicong Li, Jiahao Wang, Zhishu Jiang, Hangyu Mao, Zhongxia Chen, Jiazhen Du, Yuanxing Zhang, Fuzheng Zhang, Di Zhang, and Yong Liu. Dmqr- rag: Diverse multi-query rewriting for rag. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.13154,

    arXiv

  23. [37]

    Revolutionizing retrieval- augmented generation with enhanced pdf structure recognition

    [Lin, 2024] Demiao Lin. Revolutionizing retrieval- augmented generation with enhanced pdf structure recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12599,

    2024 arXiv

  24. [38]

    Multi- modal molecule structure–text model for text-based re- trieval and editing

    [Liu et al., 2023] Shengchao Liu, Weili Nie, Chengpeng Wang, Jiarui Lu, Zhuoran Qiao, Ling Liu, Jian Tang, Chaowei Xiao, and Animashree Anandkumar. Multi- modal molecule structure–text model for text-based re- trieval and editing. Nature Machine Intelligence , 5(12):1447–1457,

    2023

  25. [39]

    Lost in the middle: How language mod- els use long contexts

    [Liu et al., 2024] Nelson F Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. Lost in the middle: How language mod- els use long contexts. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:157–173,

    2024

  26. [40]

    [Lozano et al., 2023] Alejandro Lozano, Scott L Fleming, Chia-Chun Chiang, and Nigam Shah. Clinfo. ai: An open- source retrieval-augmented large language model system for answering medical questions using scientific literature. In PACIFIC SYMPOSIUM ON BIOCOMPUTING 2024 , pages...

    2023

  27. [41]

    Query rewriting for retrieval- augmented large language models

    [Ma et al., 2023] Xinbei Ma, Yeyun Gong, Pengcheng He, Hai Zhao, and Nan Duan. Query rewriting for retrieval- augmented large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14283,

    2023 arXiv

  28. [42]

    Rafe: Ranking feedback improves query rewriting for rag

    [Mao et al., 2024] Shengyu Mao, Yong Jiang, Boli Chen, Xiao Li, Peng Wang, Xinyu Wang, Pengjun Xie, Fei Huang, Huajun Chen, and Ningyu Zhang. Rafe: Ranking feedback improves query rewriting for rag. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14431,

    2024 arXiv

  29. [43]

    Ambigqa: Answer- ing ambiguous open-domain questions

    [Min et al., 2020] Sewon Min, Julian Michael, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Ambigqa: Answer- ing ambiguous open-domain questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.10645,

    2020 arXiv

  30. [44]

    Searchd-advanced retrieval with text generation using large language models and cross encoding re-ranking

    [Mishra et al., 2024] Pradumn Mishra, Aditya Mahakali, and Prasanna Shrinivas Venkataraman. Searchd-advanced retrieval with text generation using large language models and cross encoding re-ranking. In2024 IEEE 20th Interna- tional Conference on Automation Science and Engineer...

    2024

  31. [45]

    Is your llm outdated? bench- marking llms & alignment algorithms for time-sensitive knowledge

    [Mousavi et al., 2024] Seyed Mahed Mousavi, Simone Al- ghisi, and Giuseppe Riccardi. Is your llm outdated? bench- marking llms & alignment algorithms for time-sensitive knowledge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08700,

    2024 arXiv

  32. [46]

    A survey of large language models for fi- nancial applications: Progress, prospects and challenges

    [Nie et al., 2024] Yuqi Nie, Yaxuan Kong, Xiaowen Dong, John M Mulvey, H Vincent Poor, Qingsong Wen, and Ste- fan Zohren. A survey of large language models for fi- nancial applications: Progress, prospects and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11903,

    2024 arXiv

  33. [47]

    Llm is like a box of choco- lates: the non-determinism of chatgpt in code generation

    [Ouyang et al., 2023] Shuyin Ouyang, Jie M Zhang, Mark Harman, and Meng Wang. Llm is like a box of choco- lates: the non-determinism of chatgpt in code generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.02828,

    2023 arXiv

  34. [48]

    Large language model based long-tail query rewriting in taobao search

    [Peng et al., 2024] Wenjun Peng, Guiyang Li, Yue Jiang, Zi- long Wang, Dan Ou, Xiaoyi Zeng, Derong Xu, Tong Xu, and Enhong Chen. Large language model based long-tail query rewriting in taobao search. In Companion Proceed- ings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024 , pages 20–28,

    2024

  35. [49]

    Summarization is (almost) dead

    [Pu et al., 2023] Xiao Pu, Mingqi Gao, and Xiaojun Wan. Summarization is (almost) dead. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.09558,

    2023 arXiv

  36. [50]

    Maximizing rag efficiency: A comparative analysis of rag methods

    [S ¸akar and Emekci, 2024] Tolga S ¸akar and Hakan Emekci. Maximizing rag efficiency: A comparative analysis of rag methods. Natural Language Processing, pages 1–25,

    2024

  37. [51]

    Raptor: Recursive abstractive processing for tree-organized retrieval

    [Sarthi et al., 2024] Parth Sarthi, Salman Abdullah, Aditi Tuli, Shubh Khanna, Anna Goldie, and Christopher D Manning. Raptor: Recursive abstractive processing for tree-organized retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.18059,

    2024 arXiv

  38. [52]

    Enhancing retrieval and managing retrieval: A four-module synergy for improved quality and efficiency in rag systems

    [Shi et al., 2024] Yunxiao Shi, Xing Zi, Zijing Shi, Haimin Zhang, Qiang Wu, and Min Xu. Enhancing retrieval and managing retrieval: A four-module synergy for improved quality and efficiency in rag systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10670,

    2024 arXiv

  39. [53]

    Scirepeval: A multi-format benchmark for scientific document repre- sentations

    [Singh et al., 2022] Amanpreet Singh, Mike D’Arcy, Arman Cohan, Doug Downey, and Sergey Feldman. Scirepeval: A multi-format benchmark for scientific document repre- sentations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.13308,

    2022 arXiv

  40. [54]

    Gistembed: Guided in- sample selection of training negatives for text embedding fine-tuning

    [Solatorio, 2024] Aivin V Solatorio. Gistembed: Guided in- sample selection of training negatives for text embedding fine-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16829,

    2024 arXiv

  41. [55]

    Improving llm code generation with grammar augmentation

    [Ugare et al., 2024] Shubham Ugare, Tarun Suresh, Hangoo Kang, Sasa Misailovic, and Gagandeep Singh. Improving llm code generation with grammar augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.01632,

    2024 arXiv

  42. [56]

    Retrieval-based controllable molecule generation

    [Wang et al., 2022] Zichao Wang, Weili Nie, Zhuoran Qiao, Chaowei Xiao, Richard Baraniuk, and Anima Anandku- mar. Retrieval-based controllable molecule generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.11126,

    2022 arXiv

  43. [57]

    Biobridge: Bridging biomed- ical foundation models via knowledge graph

    [Wang et al., 2023] Zifeng Wang, Zichen Wang, Balasubra- maniam Srinivasan, Vassilis N Ioannidis, Huzefa Rang- wala, and Rishita Anubhai. Biobridge: Bridging biomed- ical foundation models via knowledge graph. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03320,

    2023 arXiv

  44. [58]

    Biorag: A rag-llm frame- work for biological question reasoning

    [Wang et al., 2024a] Chengrui Wang, Qingqing Long, Meng Xiao, Xunxin Cai, Chengjun Wu, Zhen Meng, Xuezhi Wang, and Yuanchun Zhou. Biorag: A rag-llm frame- work for biological question reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.01107,

    arXiv

  45. [59]

    Recursively summarizing books with human feed- back

    [Wu et al., 2021] Jeff Wu, Long Ouyang, Daniel M Ziegler, Nisan Stiennon, Ryan Lowe, Jan Leike, and Paul Chris- tiano. Recursively summarizing books with human feed- back. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.10862,

    2021 arXiv

  46. [61]

    Large language models for automated q&a involving legal documents: a survey on algorithms, frameworks and applications

    [Yang et al., 2024] Xiaoxian Yang, Zhifeng Wang, Qi Wang, Ke Wei, Kaiqi Zhang, and Jiangang Shi. Large language models for automated q&a involving legal documents: a survey on algorithms, frameworks and applications. Inter- national Journal of Web Information Systems, 20(4):413– 435,

    2024

  47. [62]

    Financial re- port chunking for effective retrieval augmented generation

    [Yepes et al., 2024] Antonio Jimeno Yepes, Yao You, Jan Milczek, Sebastian Laverde, and Renyu Li. Financial re- port chunking for effective retrieval augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05131,

    2024 arXiv

  48. [63]

    How do large language models capture the ever-changing world knowledge? a review of recent advances

    [Zhang et al., 2023] Zihan Zhang, Meng Fang, Ling Chen, Mohammad-Reza Namazi-Rad, and Jun Wang. How do large language models capture the ever-changing world knowledge? a review of recent advances. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07343,

    2023 arXiv

  49. [64]

    Long context compression with activation beacon

    [Zhang et al., 2024a] Peitian Zhang, Zheng Liu, Shitao Xiao, Ninglu Shao, Qiwei Ye, and Zhicheng Dou. Long context compression with activation beacon. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.03462,

    arXiv

  50. [65]

    Pushing the limit of llm capacity for text classification

    [Zhang et al., 2024b] Yazhou Zhang, Mengyao Wang, Chenyu Ren, Qiuchi Li, Prayag Tiwari, Benyou Wang, and Jing Qin. Pushing the limit of llm capacity for text classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07470,

    arXiv

  51. [66]

    Teleclass: Taxonomy enrichment and llm-enhanced hierarchical text classification with minimal supervision

    [Zhang et al., 2024c] Yunyi Zhang, Ruozhen Yang, Xue- qiang Xu, Rui Li, Jinfeng Xiao, Jiaming Shen, and Jiawei Han. Teleclass: Taxonomy enrichment and llm-enhanced hierarchical text classification with minimal supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00165,

    arXiv

  52. [67]

    Longrag: A dual-perspective retrieval-augmented generation paradigm for long-context question answering

    [Zhao et al., 2024] Qingfei Zhao, Ruobing Wang, Yukuo Cen, Daren Zha, Shicheng Tan, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. Longrag: A dual-perspective retrieval-augmented generation paradigm for long-context question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18050,

    2024 arXiv

  53. [68]

    Take a step back: Evoking reasoning via abstraction in large language models

    [Zheng et al., 2023a] Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Swaroop Mishra, Xinyun Chen, Heng-Tze Cheng, Ed H Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. Take a step back: Evoking reasoning via abstraction in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06117,

    arXiv

  54. [69]

    Mix-of-granularity: Optimize the chunking granularity for retrieval-augmented generation

    [Zhong et al., 2024] Zijie Zhong, Hanwen Liu, Xiaoya Cui, Xiaofan Zhang, and Zengchang Qin. Mix-of-granularity: Optimize the chunking granularity for retrieval-augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00456, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  55. [2018]

    Lon- galign: A recipe for long context alignment of large lan- guage models

    [Bai et al., 2024] Yushi Bai, Xin Lv, Jiajie Zhang, Yuze He, Ji Qi, Lei Hou, Jie Tang, Yuxiao Dong, and Juanzi Li. Lon- galign: A recipe for long context alignment of large lan- guage models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.18058,

    2024 arXiv

  56. [2019]

    Linq-embed-mistral:elevating text retrieval with improved gpt data through task-specific control and quality refinement

    [Kim et al., 2024] Junseong Kim, Seolhwa Lee, Jihoon Kwon, Sangmo Gu, Yejin Kim, Minkyung Cho, Jy yong Sohn, and Chanyeol Choi. Linq-embed-mistral:elevating text retrieval with improved gpt data through task-specific control and quality refinement. Linq AI Research Blog,

    2024

  57. [2020]

    Rq- rag: Learning to refine queries for retrieval augmented generation

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

    2024 arXiv

  58. [2021]

    Prompt-based 3d molecular diffusion models for structure- based drug design

    [Yang et al., 2023] Ling Yang, Zhilin Huang, Xiangxin Zhou, Minkai Xu, Wentao Zhang, Yu Wang, Xiawu Zheng, Wenming Yang, Ron O Dror, Shenda Hong, et al. Prompt-based 3d molecular diffusion models for structure- based drug design

    2023

  59. [2022]

    Language models are few- shot learners

    [Brown, 2020] Tom B Brown. Language models are few- shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165,

    2020 arXiv

  60. [2023]

    Large language models for mathematical reasoning: Progresses and chal- lenges

    [Ahn et al., 2024] Janice Ahn, Rishu Verma, Renze Lou, Di Liu, Rui Zhang, and Wenpeng Yin. Large language models for mathematical reasoning: Progresses and chal- lenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00157,

    2024 arXiv

  61. [2024]

    Summarizing opinions: Aspect extraction meets sentiment prediction and they are both weakly supervised

    [Angelidis and Lapata, 2018] Stefanos Angelidis and Mirella Lapata. Summarizing opinions: Aspect extraction meets sentiment prediction and they are both weakly supervised. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.08858,

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.