Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

A Systematic Review of Key Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) Systems: Progress, Gaps, and Future Directions

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that retrieval-augmented generation has become the standard way to ground large language models in external, updatable knowledge, and that retrieval-augmented models outperform purely parametric generators on…

desk verdict A readable but sloppy survey that doesn't earn its 'systematic' label; the foundations section is decent, but unreleased extraction data and visible citation errors undermine the comparative claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18910 v1 pith:QZ4YWNRE submitted 2025-07-25 cs.CL cs.LG

Agada Joseph Oche , Ademola Glory Folashade , Tirthankar Ghosal , Arpan Biswas This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords retrieval-augmentedgenerationlargelanguagemodelssystematicreviewdenseretrievalopen-domainquestionansweringhallucinationmitigationevaluationbenchmarksagenticRAG
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

This paper is a systematic review of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), the technique of connecting a language model to an external text corpus at inference time so its answers are grounded in retrieved evidence. It argues that RAG has moved from a 2020 research idea to a core paradigm for making large language models factual, current, and auditable, and that retrieval-augmented models substantially outperform purely parametric generators on knowledge-intensive tasks. The review's contribution is a structured year-by-year synthesis (2017 through mid-2025) that connects the retrieve-and-read precursors, the architectural components, the benchmarks, the enterprise deployments, and the open challenges into one picture. A sympathetic reader would care because the review tries to organize a very large, fast-moving literature into a form that lets practitioners see what works, what remains unsolved, and what is next.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the retrieval-generation pair with latent document marginalization, written in the paper as $P(y|x)=\sum_i P_{\mathrm{ret}}(z_i|x)\,P_{\mathrm{gen}}(y|x,z_i)$. The retriever, typically a contrastively trained bi-encoder (DPR-style), defines a distribution over documents via embedding dot products, and the generator, a BART- or T5-style sequence-to-sequence model, defines a distribution over output tokens conditioned on query and retrieved passages. Around this core sits the standard pipeline---chunking, embedding, reranking, generation---and the fusion strategies (early concatenation of many passages versus late marginalization over individual passages) that determine how evidence is combined. The second central mechanism is the split between parametric memory (weights of the generator) and non-parametric memory (the external corpus), which is what makes knowledge updates and citation possible without retraining.

What would settle it

A reader could go to the papers cited in Section 6 and Table 1, re-extract the Exact Match, F1, and latency figures reported for each RAG system, and compare them against the review's synthesis; if the numbers do not match the sources, the comparative evaluation collapses. A second decisive check would be a fresh knowledge-intensive benchmark on which a same-scale long-context parametric model outperforms a well-tuned RAG system.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that retrieval-augmented generation has become the standard recipe for grounding large language models in external, updatable knowledge, and that this recipe reliably improves factual accuracy over purely parametric generation. The paper presents RAG as a latent-variable generative model in which a retriever produces a small set of relevant passages and a sequence-to-sequence generator conditions on both the query and those passages; it then traces how that formulation evolved, from early extractive QA pipelines through dense retrieval, Fusion-in-Decoder style multi-passage reading, retrieval-aware pretraining, and up to agentic, multimodal, and graph-based variants in 2025. The review also claims that architectural choices such as chunking, embedding, and reranking directly determine downstream performance, that RAG's modularity makes knowledge updates possible without retraining, and that the main open problems are retrieval quality, latency, privacy, and faithful integration of retrieved evidence.

Load-bearing premise

The review's conclusions rest on the assumption that the manually screened corpus of papers is representative of the RAG field and that the extracted performance figures are accurate, but because the collected data were never released as a central repository, neither coverage nor fidelity can be independently checked.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If RAG is as central as the review claims, then any knowledge-intensive LLM deployment should treat the retriever and the index as first-class components, not afterthoughts.
  • Smaller retrieval-augmented models can match much larger closed-book models (the review cites RETRO and Atlas as evidence), so parameter count is not the only route to knowledge.
  • Because the corpus is separated from model weights, an organization can update its knowledge by refreshing the index rather than retraining the model, and can enforce access control at retrieval time.
  • The review's evaluation dimension table implies that RAG systems should be judged on retrieval recall, generation faithfulness, latency, and scalability together, not on answer accuracy alone.
  • Future work flagged by the review---multi-hop retrieval, privacy-preserving retrieval, multimodal and agentic RAG, and structured knowledge integration---defines the likely next phase of RAG research.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the review's quantitative synthesis is only as strong as the unpublished data repository behind it, so a reader should treat the Table 1 numbers as needing re-extraction from the cited papers before reuse.
  • Editorial inference: if the field follows the review's future-directions list, the next few years should produce RAG systems that decide when to retrieve and how many hops to take, making query planning a first-class research problem.
  • Editorial inference: the legal and medical case studies suggest that domain-specific evaluation and provenance tracking will matter more than a single universal RAG benchmark.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper is a systematic review of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) that aims to cover the field from its pre-2020 roots to mid-2025. It describes the technical components of RAG (retrievers, generators, fusion strategies), provides a year-by-year chronology of milestones (2017-2025), discusses industry deployments on proprietary data, lists evaluation metrics and benchmarks, surveys technical and ethical challenges, and outlines future directions. The central synthesized claim is that RAG-based models significantly outperform purely parametric generative models on knowledge-intensive tasks (Section 8.1).

Significance. If the synthesis were fully supported by auditable evidence, the review would be a useful reference for the RAG community: it covers a broad literature, organizes it chronologically and thematically, and connects academic work to enterprise case studies and domain-specific challenges (legal, medical, customer support). The paper also catalogs recent 2024-2025 developments (GraphRAG, agentic RAG, security benchmarks, multimodal RAG), which adds timely value. However, the credibility of the central comparative claim is currently limited because the underlying data extraction is not transparent and because visible citation and year-attribution errors appear throughout the text. The review's utility as a rigorous systematic review is therefore not yet realized.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3 and Section 8.1] The comparative claim that 'RAG-based models significantly outperform purely parametric generative models' (Section 8.1) is presented as a synthesis of the extracted data, but the extraction is not auditable. The 'central repository' is never released, no extraction form is provided, no inter-coder reliability statistics are reported, and the screening counts from Section 2.1 are absent. Because the central claim rests entirely on this pipeline, the authors should release the repository (or a complete extracted-data table) as supplementary material, report screening and exclusion numbers, and provide the extraction instrument and reliability measures.
  2. [Section 4.2] The year-by-year narrative contains several factual attribution errors that are load-bearing for the chronological synthesis. FiD (reference [34]) is described under 2020 despite being an EACL 2021 paper; EMDR2 (reference [76]) is also discussed under 2020 although it is an ACL 2021 paper; KILT is cited as both [68] and [69]; and the same RAG paper is cited as [51] and [52]. These errors need to be corrected and the chronology verified, because the year-by-year progress is a core claimed contribution.
  3. [Section 4.2, Section 4.3, and the reference list] The text contains unprocessed citation artifacts, including 'contentReference[:4]index=4' in the 2021 subsection and 'citep katsis2025mtrag' in Section 4.3, and reference [14] is a placeholder (arXiv:2511.00000) with the note 'CSUC 2025 submission,' which is not a verifiable source. The reference list must be cleaned and every entry verified against a published record; these artifacts currently undermine confidence in the accuracy of the entire bibliography.
  4. [Section 6, Table 1] The evaluation section lists metrics, benchmarks, and tools but does not report the extracted performance comparisons that would substantiate the comparative statements made throughout the review (e.g., Section 4.2's claims about DPR, FiD, ATLAS, RETRO, and Section 8.1's overall superiority claim). Table 1 only enumerates metric names and descriptions. The authors should include a comparative table (or appendix) with the per-system numbers actually extracted, so the reader can verify the synthesis.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2.1] The inclusion criteria list ends with a stray word 'end' that appears to be a leftover from editing and should be removed.
  2. [Section 1.1] The phrase 'This paper provides a unique perspective on to review of literature in RAG' is grammatically broken; it should be rephrased, e.g., to 'This paper provides a unique perspective on the RAG literature by presenting detailed yearly progress, developing new perspectives, and evaluating trends.'
  3. [Section 4.2] There are typographical errors such as 'SOme' and 'anual year-by-year' that should be corrected.
  4. [Section 6] The sentence 'Summary of this section is in Table Table 1' should be corrected to 'Table 1'.
  5. [References] References [44] and [45] appear to be the same DPR paper with slightly different formatting, and references [25] and [26] appear to be the same REALM paper; these duplicates should be merged.
  6. [Section 5.2] The industry case studies (PGA Tour, Bayer, Rocket Companies, Shorenstein Properties) all cite a single Wall Street Journal article [11]; to support the claims, the authors should supplement this with primary sources or vendor documentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the RAG definition, equations, and comparative claims are all attributed to external prior work.

full rationale

This is a systematic literature review, not a derivation. The central technical content — Eq. (1) for the RAG marginalization, Eq. (2) for the retriever distribution, and Eq. (3) for the contrastive retrieval loss — is explicitly attributed to the original RAG and DPR papers ([52], [45]) and is presented as a description of the field rather than as a new result derived from the review's own assumptions. The comparative statement 'RAG-based models significantly outperform purely parametric generative models' (Section 8.1) is backed by citations to external evaluations ([52], [45]) and is therefore an empirical literature claim, not a prediction generated from parameters fitted elsewhere in this paper. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no ansatz is smuggled in through a self-citation, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' own prior work is invoked; in fact, the author list does not overlap with any cited reference. The absence of the promised 'central repository' (Section 2.3) and the visible citation/year inconsistencies in Section 4 are serious reproducibility and quality concerns, but they do not make the argument circular: the claims remain checkable against the cited external papers rather than being true by definition of this review's inputs. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the circularity score is 0.

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

This is a review, so there are no free parameters or invented entities. It relies on the completeness of its literature search and the accuracy of the cited results, both of which are unverified due to missing artifacts and citation inconsistencies.

assumptions (2)
  • ad hoc to paper The inclusion and exclusion criteria applied by the authors yield a representative sample of RAG literature.
    Section 2.2 defines subjective screening criteria, but no inter-annotator agreement or screening statistics are reported, so representativeness is assumed.
  • domain assumption Performance figures quoted from prior papers are accurately transcribed.
    Section 2.3 says quantitative observations were extracted, but no verification or raw data are provided, and the citation errors elsewhere lower confidence in transcription fidelity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Systematic Review of Key Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) Systems: Progress, Gaps, and Future Directions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QZ4YWNRE

@misc{pith2026250718910,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Systematic Review of Key Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) Systems: Progress, Gaps, and Future Directions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QZ4YWNRE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18910}
}
read the original abstract

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) represents a major advancement in natural language processing (NLP), combining large language models (LLMs) with information retrieval systems to enhance factual grounding, accuracy, and contextual relevance. This paper presents a comprehensive systematic review of RAG, tracing its evolution from early developments in open domain question answering to recent state-of-the-art implementations across diverse applications. The review begins by outlining the motivations behind RAG, particularly its ability to mitigate hallucinations and outdated knowledge in parametric models. Core technical components-retrieval mechanisms, sequence-to-sequence generation models, and fusion strategies are examined in detail. A year-by-year analysis highlights key milestones and research trends, providing insight into RAG's rapid growth. The paper further explores the deployment of RAG in enterprise systems, addressing practical challenges related to retrieval of proprietary data, security, and scalability. A comparative evaluation of RAG implementations is conducted, benchmarking performance on retrieval accuracy, generation fluency, latency, and computational efficiency. Persistent challenges such as retrieval quality, privacy concerns, and integration overhead are critically assessed. Finally, the review highlights emerging solutions, including hybrid retrieval approaches, privacy-preserving techniques, optimized fusion strategies, and agentic RAG architectures. These innovations point toward a future of more reliable, efficient, and context-aware knowledge-intensive NLP systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18910 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of a RAG Architecture. Chunking, Embedding, and (Re)ranking :A typical RAG pipeline consists of four stages: chunking, embedding, (re)ranking, and generation. First, chunking is applied to the knowledge source: large documents are segmented into smaller, self-contained pieces (e.g., paragraphs or passages) for indexing. Using fine-grained text chunks as retrieval units improves the chance that a query w… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of a RAG Architecture. generation components were not trained jointly, and the end-to-end approach was limited to extractive answers. In 2018, work shifted toward tighter integration between retrieval and reading. [92] proposed R3 (Reinforced Reader-Ranker ), adding a neural ranker to score retrieved passages by answer likelihood. The system then learned ranker–reader synergy via reinforcement learning, bo… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 5 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. SentAttack: A Sentence-Level Black-Box Adversarial Attack Method for Dense Retrieval Models

    cs.IR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    SentAttack promotes hard low-ranked target documents into top-K dense-retrieval results via iterative-retrieval surrogate training, centroid concatenation, and query/centroid-guided beam-search synonym optimization.

  2. Benchmarking and Learning Real-World Customer Service Dialogue

    cs.CL 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    OlaMind, a Learn-to-Think plus basic-to-hard RL pipeline for RAG customer service, reports +28.92% issue resolution, -6.08% human transfer online, and an 8.6% offline hallucination rate.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [51]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (NeurIPS), pages 9459–9474, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [52]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS),volume33, pages9459–9474.Curran Associa...

    work page 2020

  3. [68]

    KILT: a benchmark for knowledge intensive language tasks

    Fabio Petroni, Aleksandra Piktus, Angela Fan, Patrick Lewis, Majid Yazdani, Nicola De Cao, James Thorne, Yacine Jernite, Vladimir Karpukhin, Jean Maillard, Vassilis Plachouras, Tim Rocktäschel, and Sebastian Riedel. KILT: a benchmark for knowledge intensive language tasks. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Associat...

    work page 2021

  4. [69]

    Kilt: a benchmark for knowledge intensive language tasks

    Fabio Petroni, Aleksandra Piktus, Angela Fan, Patrick Lewis, Majid Yazdani, Nicola De Cao, James Thorne, Yacine Jernite, Vladimir Karpukhin, Jean Maillard, Vassilis Plachouras, Tim Rocktäschel, and Sebastian Riedel. Kilt: a benchmark for knowledge intensive language tasks. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT 2021, pages 2523–2544, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [14]

    Retrieval-augmented generation with knowledge graphs: A survey

    Ruixi Chen. Retrieval-augmented generation with knowledge graphs: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.00000, 2025. CSUC 2025 submission

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [34]

    Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering

    Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL) , pages 874–880, 2021

    2021

  7. [76]

    Hamilton, Chris Dyer, and Dani Yogatama

    Devendra Singh Sachan, Siva Reddy, William L. Hamilton, Chris Dyer, and Dani Yogatama. End-to-end training of multi-document reader and retriever for open-domain question answering. CoRR, abs/2106.05346, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  8. [1]

    Ragar, your falsehood radar: Rag-augmented reasoning for political fact-checking using multimodal llms

    Mohammed AbdulKhaliq, Paul Yu-Chun Chang, Mingyang Ma, Bernhard Pflugfelder, and Filip Miletic. Ragar, your falsehood radar: Rag-augmented reasoning for political fact-checking using multimodal llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12065, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 107 references
  1. [2]

    Cbr-rag: Case-based reasoning for retrieval augmented generation in llms for legal question answering

    Mark Agatonovic, Anastasia Shimorina, et al. Cbr-rag: Case-based reasoning for retrieval augmented generation in llms for legal question answering. In Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL), 2024 (to appear)

    2024

  2. [3]

    FACTS about building retrieval augmented generation-based chatbots

    Rama Akkiraju, Anbang Xu, Deepak Bora, Tan Yu, Lu An, Vishal Seth, Aaditya Shukla, et al. FACTS about building retrieval augmented generation-based chatbots. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07858, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [4]

    Hyperrag: Enhancing quality-efficiency tradeoffs in retrieval-augmented generation with reranker kv-cache reuse

    Yuwei An, Yihua Cheng, Seo Jin Park, and Junchen Jiang. Hyperrag: Enhancing quality-efficiency tradeoffs in retrieval-augmented generation with reranker kv-cache reuse. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02921, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  4. [5]

    Self-rag: Learning to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection

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

    2023 arXiv

  5. [6]

    Self-rag: Learning to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection

    Akari Asai, Zeqiu Wu, Yizhong Wang, Avirup Sil, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Self-rag: Learning to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024

    2024

  6. [7]

    Bias on the web

    Ricardo Baeza-Yates. Bias on the web. Communications of the ACM , 61(6):54–61, 2018

    2018

  7. [8]

    Leveraging approximate caching for faster retrieval-augmented generation

    Shai Bergman, Zhang Ji, Anne-Marie Kermarrec, Diana Petrescu, Rafael Pires, Mathis Randl, and Martijn de Vos. Leveraging approximate caching for faster retrieval-augmented generation. InProceedings of the 5th Workshop on Machine Learning and Systems (EuroMLSys), 2025

    2025

  8. [9]

    Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens

    Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George van den Driessche, Jean Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, et al. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.04426, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  9. [10]

    Rae, Erich Elsen, and Laurent Sifre

    Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George van den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, Diego de Las Casas, Aurelia Guy, Jacob Menick, Roman Ring, Tom Hennigan, Saffron Huang, Loren Maggiore,...

    2022

  10. [11]

    Ai doesn’t know much about golf

    Isabelle Bousquette. Ai doesn’t know much about golf. or farming. or mortgages. or ...The Wall Street Journal, 2024

    2024

  11. [12]

    Reading wikipedia to answer open-domain questions

    Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. Reading wikipedia to answer open-domain questions. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 1870–1879, 2017

    2017

  12. [13]

    Benchmarking large language models in retrieval-augmented generation

    Jiawei Chen, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, and Le Sun. Benchmarking large language models in retrieval-augmented generation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 17754–17762, 2024

    2024

  13. [15]

    Bridging the gap between prior and posterior knowledge selection for knowledge-grounded dialogue generation

    Xiuyi Chen, Fandong Meng, Peng Li, Feilong Chen, Shuang Xu, Bo Xu, and Jie Zhou. Bridging the gap between prior and posterior knowledge selection for knowledge-grounded dialogue generation. InEMNLP, 2020

    2020

  14. [16]

    Lift yourself up: Retrieval-augmented text generation with self-memory

    Xin Cheng, Di Luo, Xiuying Chen, Lemao Liu, Dongyan Zhao, and Rui Yan. Lift yourself up: Retrieval-augmented text generation with self-memory. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:43780–43799, 2023. 27

    2023

  15. [17]

    Two-layer retrieval-augmented generation framework for low-resource medical question answering using reddit data: Proof-of-concept study

    Sudeshna Das, Yao Ge, Yuting Guo, Swati Rajwal, JaMor Hairston, Jeanne Powell, Drew Walker, SnigdhaPeddireddy, SahithiLakamana, Selen Bozkurt, Matthew Reyna, Reza Sameni, Yunyu Xiao, Sangmi Kim, Rasheeta Chandler, Natalie Hernandez, Danielle Mowery, Rachel Wightman, Jennifer L...

    2025

  16. [18]

    Wizard of wikipedia: Knowledge-powered conversational agents

    Emily Dinan, Stephen Roller, Kurt Shuster, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and Jason Weston. Wizard of wikipedia: Knowledge-powered conversational agents. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2019

    2019

  17. [19]

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

    Yujuan Ding, Wenqi Fan, Liangbo Ning, Shijie Wang, Hengyun Li, Dawei Yin, Tat-Seng Chua, and Qing Li. A survey on rag meets llms: Towards retrieval-augmented large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06211, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [20]

    ARAGOG: Advanced RAG output grading

    Matouš Eibich, Shivay Nagpal, and Alexander Fred-Ojala. ARAGOG: Advanced RAG output grading. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01037, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [21]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, Meng Wang, and Haofen Wang. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [22]

    Kather, and Aidan Hogan

    Stephen Gilbert, Jakob N. Kather, and Aidan Hogan. Augmented non-hallucinating large language models as medical information curators. NPJ Digital Medicine, 7(1):100030, 2024

    2024

  21. [23]

    Cpr: Retrieval augmented generation for copyright protection

    Aditya Golatkar, Alessandro Achille, Luca Zancato, Yu-Xiang Wang, Ashwin Swaminathan, and Stefano Soatto. Cpr: Retrieval augmented generation for copyright protection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12374–12384, 2024

    2024

  22. [24]

    Structugraphrag: Structured document-informed knowledge graphs for retrieval-augmented generation

    Xiaoming Guo, Shengting Cao, Shenglin Li, Qi Yin, and Cien Li. Structugraphrag: Structured document-informed knowledge graphs for retrieval-augmented generation. In AAAI Spring Symposium on Generative AI for Social Science Research, 2024

    2024

  23. [25]

    REALM: Retrieval-augmented language model pre-training

    Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Ming-Wei Chang. REALM: Retrieval-augmented language model pre-training. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 3929–3938, 2020

    2020

  24. [26]

    Retrieval-augmented language model pre-training

    Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Ming-Wei Chang. Retrieval-augmented language model pre-training. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), volume 119, pages 3929–3938, Online,

  25. [27]

    A survey on largelanguagemodels: Applications, challenges, limitations, and practical usage

    Muhammad Usman Hadi, Rizwan Qureshi, Abbas Shah, Muhammad Irfan, Anas Zafar, Muhammad Bilal Shaikh, Naveed Akhtar, Jia Wu, Seyedali Mirjalili, et al. A survey on largelanguagemodels: Applications, challenges, limitations, and practical usage. Authorea Preprints, 3, 2023

    2023

  26. [28]

    Haoyu Han, Harry Shomer, Yu Wang, Yongjia Lei, Kai Guo, Zhigang Hua, Bo Long, Hui Liu, and Jiliang Tang. Rag vs. graphrag: A systematic evaluation and key insights.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11371, 2025

    2025

  27. [29]

    Rossi, Subhabrata Mukherjee, Xianfeng Tang, Bo Long, Tong Zhao, Neil Shah, Yinglong Xia, and Jiliang Tang

    Haoyu Han, Yu Wang, Harry Shomer, Kai Guo, Jiayuan Ding, Yongjia Lei, Mahantesh Halappanavar, Ryan A. Rossi, Subhabrata Mukherjee, Xianfeng Tang, Bo Long, Tong Zhao, Neil Shah, Yinglong Xia, and Jiliang Tang. Retrieval-augmented generation with graphs (graphrag). arXiv preprin...

    2025 arXiv

  28. [30]

    Knowledge updating? no more model editing! just selective contextual reasoning.Journal of the ACM, 2025

    Guoxiu He, Xin Song, and Aixin Sun. Knowledge updating? no more model editing! just selective contextual reasoning.Journal of the ACM, 2025. to appear

    2025

  29. [31]

    G-retriever: Retrieval-augmented generation for textual graph understanding and question answering

    Xiaoxin He, Yijun Tian, Yifei Sun, Nitesh Chawla, Thomas Laurent, Yann LeCun, Xavier Bresson, and Bryan Hooi. G-retriever: Retrieval-augmented generation for textual graph understanding and question answering. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:132876–132907, 2024

    2024

  30. [32]

    What is rag (retrieval augmented generation)? IBM, 2023

    IBM. What is rag (retrieval augmented generation)? IBM, 2023. 28

    2023

  31. [33]

    What is retrieval-augmented generation? IBM Research Blog, 22 August 2023, 2023

    IBM Research. What is retrieval-augmented generation? IBM Research Blog, 22 August 2023, 2023. https://research.ibm.com/blog/ retrieval-augmented-generation-RAG

    2023

  32. [35]

    Atlas: Few-shot learning with retrieval augmented language models

    Gautier Izacard, Patrick Lewis, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, Fabio Petroni, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Armand Joulin, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. Atlas: Few-shot learning with retrieval augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03299, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  33. [36]

    Atlas: Few-shot learning with retrieval augmented language models

    Gautier Izacard, Patrick Lewis, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, Fabio Petroni, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Armand Joulin, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. Atlas: Few-shot learning with retrieval augmented language models. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24:1–43, 2023

    2023

  34. [37]

    Unsupervised dense information retrievalwithcontrastivelearning

    Gautier Izacard, Xin Wan, Christoph Böhm, Kazuma Irie, Nathanael Schärli, and Sebastian Riedel. Unsupervised dense information retrievalwithcontrastivelearning. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2022. arXiv:2201.10672

    2022 arXiv

  35. [38]

    Active retrieval augmented generation

    Zhengbao Jiang, Frank Xu, Luyu Gao, Zhiqing Sun, Qian Liu, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig. Active retrieval augmented generation. In Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali, editors, Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Na...

    2023

  36. [39]

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

    Bowen Jin, Jinsung Yoon, Jiawei Han, and Sercan O Arik. Long-context llms meet rag: Overcoming challenges for long inputs in rag. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  37. [40]

    Ragcache: Efficient knowledge caching for retrieval-augmented generation

    Chao Jin, Zili Zhang, Xuanlin Jiang, Fangyue Liu, Xin Liu, Xuanzhe Liu, and Xin Jin. Ragcache: Efficient knowledge caching for retrieval-augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12457, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  38. [41]

    Tug-of-war between knowledge: Exploring and resolving knowledge conflicts in retrieval-augmented language models

    Zhuoran Jin, Pengfei Cao, Yubo Chen, Kang Liu, Xiaojian Jiang, Jiexin Xu, Qiuxia Li, and Jun Zhao. Tug-of-war between knowledge: Exploring and resolving knowledge conflicts in retrieval-augmented language models. In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint Conference on Computational Lan...

    2024

  39. [42]

    Securing retrieval-augmented generation: Privacy risks and mitigation strategies

    Sheshananda Reddy Kandula. Securing retrieval-augmented generation: Privacy risks and mitigation strategies. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2025

    2025

  40. [43]

    Knowledge graph-augmented language models for knowledge-grounded dialogue generation (surge)

    Minki Kang, Jin Myung Kwak, Jinheon Baek, and Sung Ju Hwang. Knowledge graph-augmented language models for knowledge-grounded dialogue generation (surge). arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18846, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  41. [44]

    Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering

    Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), page...

    2020

  42. [45]

    Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick S. H. Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)...

    2020

  43. [46]

    Mitigating bias in rag: Controlling the embedder

    Taeyoun Kim, Jacob Springer, Aditi Raghunathan, and Maarten Sap. Mitigating bias in rag: Controlling the embedder. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.17390, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  44. [47]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for dialog modeling

    Lilly Kumari, Usama Bin Shafqat, and Nikhil Sarda. Retrieval-augmented generation for dialog modeling. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS

  45. [48]

    Latent retrieval for weakly supervised open domain question answering

    Kenton Lee, Ming-Wei Chang, and Kristina Toutanova. Latent retrieval for weakly supervised open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 6086–6096, Florence, Italy, 2019. Association for ...

    2019

  46. [49]

    Pre-training via paraphrasing

    Mike Lewis, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Gargi Ghosh, Armen Aghajanyan, Sida Wang, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Pre-training via paraphrasing. arXiv:2006.15020, 2020

    2006 arXiv

  47. [50]

    Time100 ai 2024.Time, 2024

    Patrick Lewis. Time100 ai 2024.Time, 2024

    2024

  48. [53]

    Yu, and Jingren Zhou

    Yangning Li, Yinghui Li, Xinyu Wang, Yong Jiang, Zhen Zhang, Xinran Zheng, Hui Wang, Hai-Tao Zheng, Pengjun Xie, Philip S. Yu, and Jingren Zhou. Benchmarking multimodal retrieval augmented generation with dynamic VQA dataset and self-adaptive planning agent. arXiv preprint arX...

    2024 arXiv

  49. [54]

    Retrieval augmented generation or long-context LLMs? a comprehensive study and hybrid approach

    Zhen Li, Cheng Li, Ming Zhang, Qiaozhu Mei, and Michael Bendersky. Retrieval augmented generation or long-context LLMs? a comprehensive study and hybrid approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16833, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  50. [55]

    Saferag: Benchmarking security in retrieval-augmented generation of large language models

    Xun Liang, Simin Niu, Zhiyu Li, Sensen Zhang, Hanyu Wang, Feiyu Xiong, Jason Zhaoxin Fan, Bo Tang, Shichao Song, Mengwei Wang, and Jiawei Yang. Saferag: Benchmarking security in retrieval-augmented generation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18636, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  51. [56]

    Manning, and Daniel E

    Varun Magesh, Faiz Surani, Matthew Dahl, Mirac Suzgun, Christopher D. Manning, and Daniel E. Ho. Hallucination-free? assessing the reliability of leading ai legal research tools. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 0(1):1–27, 2025. Early View, https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12413

    2025 doi

  52. [57]

    Yu. A. Malkov and D. A. Yashunin. Efficient and robust approximate nearest neighbor search using hierarchical navigable small world graphs. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 40(9):2225–2237, 2018

    2018

  53. [58]

    Federated learning: Opportunities and challenges.arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.05428, 2021

    Priyanka Mary Mammen. Federated learning: Opportunities and challenges.arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.05428, 2021. Accessed: 2025-03-19

    2021 arXiv

  54. [59]

    A survey of multimodal retrieval-augmented generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08748, 2025

    Lang Mei, Siyu Mo, Zhihan Yang, and Chong Chen. A survey of multimodal retrieval-augmented generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08748, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  55. [60]

    What is retrieval-augmented generation aka RAG? NVIDIA Blog, 15 November 2023, 2023

    Rick Merritt. What is retrieval-augmented generation aka RAG? NVIDIA Blog, 15 November 2023, 2023. https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/ what-is-retrieval-augmented-generation/

    2023

  56. [61]

    Garcia Valencia, and Wisit Cheungpasitporn

    Jing Miao, Charat Thongprayoon, Supawadee Suppadungsuk, Oscar A. Garcia Valencia, and Wisit Cheungpasitporn. Integrating retrieval-augmented generation with large language models in nephrology: Advancing practical applications. Medicina (Kaunas), 60(3):445, 2024

    2024

  57. [62]

    Webgpt: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback

    Reiichiro Nakano, Jacob Hilton, Suchir Balaji, Jeff Wu, Long Ouyang, Christina Kim, Christopher Hesse, Shantanu Jain, Vineet Kosaraju, William Saunders, Xu Jiang, Karl Cobbe, Tyna Eloundou, Gretchen Krueger, Kevin Button, Matthew Knight, Benjamin Chess, and John Schulman. Webg...

    2022 arXiv

  58. [63]

    Passage re-ranking with bert

    Rodrigo Nogueira and Kyunghyun Cho. Passage re-ranking with bert. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) (Demonstrations), pages 72–77, 2019. 30

    2019

  59. [64]

    Capabilities of gpt-4 on medical challenge problems

    Harsha Nori, Nicholas King, Scott Mayer McKinney, Dean Carignan, and Eric Horvitz. Capabilities of gpt-4 on medical challenge problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13375, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  60. [65]

    Activate your data with custom generative ai.NVIDIA, 2023

    NVIDIA. Activate your data with custom generative ai.NVIDIA, 2023

    2023

  61. [66]

    On the risk of misinformation pollution with large language models

    Yikang Pan, Liangming Pan, Wenhu Chen, Preslav Nakov, Min-Yen Kan, and William Yang Wang. On the risk of misinformation pollution with large language models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 , pages 1389–1403, 2023

    2023

  62. [67]

    Retrieval augmented code generation and summarization

    Md Rizwan Parvez, Wasi Ahmad, Saikat Chakraborty, Baishakhi Ray, and Kai-Wei Chang. Retrieval augmented code generation and summarization. In Findings of EMNLP 2021, pages 2719–2734, 2021

    2021

  63. [71]

    Ragnarök: A reusable retrieval-augmented generation framework and baselines for the TREC 2024 RAG track

    Ronak Pradeep, Nandan Thakur, Sahel Sharifymoghaddam, Eric Zhang, Ryan Nguyen, Daniel Campos, Nick Craswell, and Jimmy Lin. Ragnarök: A reusable retrieval-augmented generation framework and baselines for the TREC 2024 RAG track. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16828, 2024. Introduce...

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Web application for retrieval-augmented generation: Implementation and testing

    Irina Radeva, Ivan Popchev, Lyubka Doukovska, and Miroslava Dimitrova. Web application for retrieval-augmented generation: Implementation and testing. Electronics, 13(7):1361, 2024

    2024

  65. [73]

    Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1–67,

  66. [74]

    Enterprise ai with retrieval-augmented generation

    AWS AI Research. Enterprise ai with retrieval-augmented generation. AWS Blog, 2023

    2023

  67. [75]

    How much knowledge can you pack into the parameters of a language model? InEMNLP, 2020

    Adam Roberts, Colin Raffel, and Noam Shazeer. How much knowledge can you pack into the parameters of a language model? InEMNLP, 2020

    2020

  68. [77]

    Hamilton, Chris Dyer, and Dani Yogatama

    Devendra Singh Sachan, Siva Reddy, William L. Hamilton, Chris Dyer, and Dani Yogatama. End-to-end training of multi-document reader and retriever for open-domain question answering. InProceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL ...

    2021

  69. [78]

    Evaluating retrieval quality in retrieval-augmented generation

    Alireza Salemi and Hamed Zamani. Evaluating retrieval quality in retrieval-augmented generation. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 2395–2400, 2024. 31

    2024

  70. [79]

    Rajendran, and Srimat Chakradhar

    Murugan Sankaradas, Ravi K. Rajendran, and Srimat Chakradhar. Streamingrag: Real-time contextual retrieval and generation framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14101, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Blenderbot 3: A deployed conversational agent that continually learns to responsibly engage

    Kurt Shuster, Da Ju, Peng Xu, Eric Michael Smith, Emily Dinan, Stephen Roller, Piali Koura, Y-Lan Boureau, and Jason Weston. Blenderbot 3: A deployed conversational agent that continually learns to responsibly engage. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03188, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Language models that seek for knowledge: Modular search & generation for dialogue and prompt completion

    Kurt Shuster, Mojtaba Komeili, Leonard Adolphs, Stephen Roller, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. Language models that seek for knowledge: Modular search & generation for dialogue and prompt completion. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pag...

    2022

  73. [82]

    Retrieval augmentation reduces hallucination in conversation

    Kurt Shuster, Spencer Poff, Moya Chen, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. Retrieval augmentation reduces hallucination in conversation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 3784–3803, 2021

    2021

  74. [83]

    Agentic retrieval-augmented generation: A survey on agentic rag

    Aditi Singh, Abul Ehtesham, Saket Kumar, and Tala Talaei Khoei. Agentic retrieval-augmented generation: A survey on agentic rag. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09136, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Singh, Ritvik Aggarwal, Ibrahim Allahverdiyev, Muhammad Taha, Aslihan Akalin, Kevin Zhu, and Sean O’Brien

    Ishneet S. Singh, Ritvik Aggarwal, Ibrahim Allahverdiyev, Muhammad Taha, Aslihan Akalin, Kevin Zhu, and Sean O’Brien. Chunkrag: A novel llm-chunk filtering method for rag systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.19572, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Improving the domain adaptation of retrieval augmented generation (rag) models for open domain question answering

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

    2023

  77. [86]

    Fine tuning vs

    Heydar Soudani, Evangelos Kanoulas, and Faegheh Hasibi. Fine tuning vs. retrieval augmented generation for less popular knowledge. InProceedings of the 2024 Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval in the Asia Pacific Regio...

    2024

  78. [87]

    End-to-end memory networks

    Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Arthur Szlam, Jason Weston, and Rob Fergus. End-to-end memory networks. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28 (NIPS 2015), pages 2440–2448, 2015

    2015

  79. [88]

    Multihop-rag: Benchmarking retrieval-augmented generation for multi-hop queries

    Yixuan Tang and Yi Yang. Multihop-rag: Benchmarking retrieval-augmented generation for multi-hop queries. In COLM, 2024. OpenReview preprint

    2024

  80. [89]

    Enterprise-grade rag systems: High-performance rag with vector databases,

    Harvey Team. Enterprise-grade rag systems: High-performance rag with vector databases,

  81. [90]

    Interleaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step questions

    Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. Interleaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step questions. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pa...

    2023

  82. [91]

    Rag based question-answering for contextual response prediction system

    Sriram Veturi, Saurabh Vaichal, Reshma Lal Jagadheesh, Nafis Irtiza Tripto, and Nian Yan. Rag based question-answering for contextual response prediction system. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 2024

    2024

  83. [92]

    Rˆ3: Reinforced reader-ranker for open-domain question answering

    Shuohang Wang, Mo Yu, Xinya Guo, Zhiguo Wang, Tim Klinger, Wei Zhang, and Jing Jiang. Rˆ3: Reinforced reader-ranker for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pages 5981–5988, 2018

    2018

  84. [93]

    Searching for best practices in retrieval-augmented generation

    Xiaohua Wang, Zhenghua Wang, Xuan Gao, Feiran Zhang, Yixin Wu, Zhibo Xu, Tianyuan Shi, Zhengyuan Wang, Shizheng Li, Qi Qian, et al. Searching for best practices in retrieval-augmented generation. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pr...

    2024

  85. [94]

    Learning to filter context for retrieval-augmented generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08377, 2023

    Zhiruo Wang, Jun Araki, Zhengbao Jiang, Md Rizwan Parvez, and Graham Neubig. Learning to filter context for retrieval-augmented generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08377, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  86. [95]

    Memory networks

    Jason Weston, Sumit Chopra, and Antoine Bordes. Memory networks. In3rd International 32 Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), Conference Track Proceedings, 2015

    2015

  87. [96]

    Self-routing rag: Binding selective retrieval with knowledge verbalization

    Di Wu, Jia-Chen Gu, Kai-Wei Chang, and Nanyun Peng. Self-routing rag: Binding selective retrieval with knowledge verbalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.01018, 2025

    2025

  88. [97]

    Benchmarking retrieval-augmented generation for medicine

    Guangzhi Xiong, Qiao Jin, Zhiyong Lu, and Aidong Zhang. Benchmarking retrieval-augmented generation for medicine. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024, pages 6233–6251, 2024

    2024

  89. [98]

    Knowing you don’t know: Learning when to continue search in multi-round rag through self-practicing

    Diji Yang, Linda Zeng, Jinmeng Rao, and Yi Zhang. Knowing you don’t know: Learning when to continue search in multi-round rag through self-practicing. In Proceedings of SIGIR 2025, 2025. arXiv:2505.02811

    2025

  90. [99]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for generative artificial intelligence in health care.npj Health Systems, 2(2):1–8, 2025

    Ruiyang Yang, Xin Huang, Xingyu Li, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for generative artificial intelligence in health care.npj Health Systems, 2(2):1–8, 2025

    2025

  91. [100]

    Rankrag: Unifying context ranking with retrieval-augmented generation in llms

    Yue Yu, Wei Ping, Zihan Liu, Boxin Wang, Jiaxuan You, Chao Zhang, Mohammad Shoeybi, and Bryan Catanzaro. Rankrag: Unifying context ranking with retrieval-augmented generation in llms. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:121156–121184, 2024

    2024

  92. [101]

    The good and the bad: Exploring privacyissuesinretrieval-augmentedgeneration (RAG)

    Shenglai Zeng, Jiankun Zhang, Pengfei He, Yiding Liu, Yue Xing, Han Xu, Jie Ren, Yi Chang, Shuaiqiang Wang, Dawei Yin, and Jiliang Tang. The good and the bad: Exploring privacyissuesinretrieval-augmentedgeneration (RAG). In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguis...

    2024

  93. [102]

    Self-adaptive multimodal retrieval-augmented generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.11321, 2024

    Wenjia Zhai. Self-adaptive multimodal retrieval-augmented generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.11321, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  94. [103]

    Interactive ai with retrieval-augmented generation for next generation networking.IEEE Network, 2024

    Ruichen Zhang, Hongyang Du, Yinqiu Liu, DusitNiyato, JiawenKang, SumeiSun, Xuemin Shen, and H Vincent Poor. Interactive ai with retrieval-augmented generation for next generation networking.IEEE Network, 2024

    2024

  95. [104]

    Raft: Adapting language model to domain specific rag

    Tianjun Zhang, Shishir G Patil, Naman Jain, Sheng Shen, Matei Zaharia, Ion Stoica, and Joseph E Gonzalez. Raft: Adapting language model to domain specific rag. In First Conference on Language Modeling, 2024

    2024

  96. [105]

    FRAG: Toward federated vector database management for collaborative and secure retrieval-augmented generation

    Danyang Zhao. FRAG: Toward federated vector database management for collaborative and secure retrieval-augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13272, 2024.https://doi. org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.13272

    2024 doi arXiv

  97. [106]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for ai-generated content: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19473, 2024

    Penghao Zhao, Hailin Zhang, Qinhan Yu, Zhengren Wang, Yunteng Geng, Fangcheng Fu, Ling Yang, Wentao Zhang, Jie Jiang, and Bin Cui. Retrieval-augmented generation for ai-generated content: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19473, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  98. [107]

    Privacy-aware rag: Secure and isolated knowledge retrieval

    Pengcheng Zhou, Yinglun Feng, and Zhongliang Yang. Privacy-aware rag: Secure and isolated knowledge retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15548, 2025. 33

    2025 arXiv

  99. [2020]

    Introduces the T5 model family, including T5-Large used as a closed-book QA baseline

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.