Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

HIRAG: Hierarchical-Thought Instruction-Tuning Retrieval-Augmented Generation

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes that retrieval-augmented generation models should be trained with a progressive chain-of-thought curriculum covering filtering, combination, and RAG-specific reasoning, and presents HIRAG, a fine-tuning recipe that…

desk verdict Solid RAG instruction-tuning recipe with a genuinely progressive curriculum, but the headline RGB numbers are partly selected on the test set. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05714 v3 pith:QH57IUSW submitted 2025-07-08 cs.CL cs.AI

YiHan Jiao , ZheHao Tan , Dan Yang , DuoLin Sun , Jie Feng , Yue Shen , Jian Wang , Peng Wei This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords retrieval-augmentedgenerationinstructiontuningchain-of-thoughthierarchicalreasoningfilteringcombinationRAG-specificopen-domainquestionanswering
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

HIRAG is an instruction-tuning method for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) built on the claim that a RAG model needs three progressively harder abilities: filtering relevant passages out of noisy context, combining information across passages, and reasoning over retrieved evidence when the answer is not stated directly. The paper argues that fine-tuning with a chain-of-thought curriculum ordered by these abilities, a 'think before answering' strategy, teaches a model to handle imperfect retrieval better than prompting alone or existing RAG fine-tuning methods. On zero-shot evaluation, the trained 7B/8B models improve over their base models and over RAG-specific baselines on RGB, PopQA, HotpotQA, MuSiQue, and PubMedQA, and in several cases match or exceed much larger models. A sympathetic reader would take the central contribution to be a concrete training recipe that turns generic instruction-tuned LLMs into better open-book reasoners.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the hierarchical chain-of-thought curriculum. The paper defines three RAG abilities, filtering, combination, and RAG-specific reasoning, and orders the training tasks so that each stage builds on the previous one. The CoT is not generic: filtering thoughts use quote and citation markers, combination thoughts name the relations between evidence sources, and reasoning thoughts lay out the inferential chain. Special tokens separate the reasoning trace from the final answer, and distractor documents plus document shuffling make the model robust to retrieval noise. This staged curriculum is what the paper credits for transferring to unseen benchmarks.

What would settle it

Train HIRAG on the same 120K samples with the chain-of-thought field replaced by a fixed placeholder such as 'reason step by step' while keeping questions, documents, and final answers identical; if benchmark accuracy stays at the same level, then the progressive hierarchical thoughts, rather than the answer distribution, are not what drives the gains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that RAG generation quality is improved by decomposing the task into three hierarchical abilities and training the model with a matching progressive chain-of-thought: first filter relevant evidence using direct quotes and citations, then combine evidence across passages by structuring parallel, hierarchical, or inclusive relations, then perform RAG-specific reasoning such as comparative, deductive, or causal inference over the documents. The training data is synthesized with strong LLMs and verified for task compliance and answer correctness, distractor documents are added to simulate imperfect retrieval, and the model is fine-tuned with special tokens that separate the reasoning trace from the final answer. The paper reports that this recipe yields accuracy gains on RAG benchmarks and open-domain QA, with the largest relative gains on multi-hop and information-integration tasks such as MuSiQue, where it reports gains of up to 7.7 percentage points over existing RAG-specific models.

Load-bearing premise

The whole curriculum, including the queries, reasoning thoughts, answers, and their correctness labels, is generated and verified by strong synthetic LLMs such as GPT-4-turbo, Qwen-MAX, and GPT-4, so the method's success depends on those synthetic traces being both accurate and representative of real RAG queries.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 7B or 8B model fine-tuned with HIRAG can reach or exceed the zero-shot RAG accuracy of much larger models such as Llama3-70B and GPT-4 on several evaluated datasets, suggesting model scale is not the only route to strong RAG performance.
  • The training recipe transfers across languages: HIRAG also improves over its base model on Chinese RGB variants, so the hierarchical curriculum is not tied to English-only data.
  • Combination and RAG-specific reasoning data are complementary to filtering data: the best overall results use a 1:2:2 ratio of the three task types, and removing the later stages drops RGB-int accuracy substantially.
  • The claimed gains are bounded by the open-book setting: HIRAG works best when the answer appears in the retrieved documents, and the paper's limitations section states that performance declines when documents only provide supplementary information.
  • The progressive order matters for the reported results, since the ablation shows that adding combination and reasoning stages changes performance even when the total data volume is held constant.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: If the gains hold under human-verified training data, the method suggests that RAG-specific CoT instruction data can be generated at scale by strong LLMs and distilled into smaller models, making high-quality RAG behavior cheaper to serve.
  • Editorial inference: A direct comparison of the 1:2:2 curriculum against the same data presented in random order would test whether progressivity itself, rather than the presence of reasoning traces, is the active ingredient in HIRAG.
  • Editorial inference: The three abilities map naturally onto retrieval-system diagnostics, so HIRAG-style training could be used to isolate whether a deployed retriever induces filtering failures, combination failures, or reasoning failures.
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

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes HIRAG, an instruction-tuning strategy for retrieval-augmented generation that decomposes RAG generative ability into three progressive skills — filtering, combination, and RAG-specific reasoning — and trains models on roughly 120K synthetic samples with a progressive chain-of-thought curriculum. The authors fine-tune Llama2-7B, Llama3-8B, and Qwen2.5-7B, then evaluate zero-shot on six benchmarks (RGB-noise, RGB-int, PopQA, HotpotQA, MuSiQue, PubMedQA) plus a Chinese RGB benchmark. They report consistent gains over base models and competitive or superior accuracy relative to RAG-specific baselines such as ChatQA-1.5/2.0, RankRAG, and RAFT, with the largest margins on multi-hop datasets.

Significance. If the reported results hold, HIRAG is a meaningful step in RAG instruction tuning. The explicit decomposition into filtering, combination, and reasoning with matching CoT paradigms is well motivated, and the gains on MuSiQue (27.8 vs 20.1 for ChatQA-1.5) and on PubMedQA for Llama2 (73.7 vs 73.3 for RAFT) suggest the curriculum transfers beyond RGB. The ablation pattern that adding combination and reasoning data improves RGB-int is consistent across English and Chinese. However, the paper does not provide code, the corrected RGB dataset, or error bars, and it selects its final data ratio on the test benchmarks; these gaps currently prevent the 'significantly improves' claim from being fully supported.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.4, Tables 3-4] The final data ratio (1:2:2) is selected by looking at RGB-noise and RGB-int accuracy, which are the same benchmark numbers reported in the main results (Table 1) and the abstract; with no held-out validation set or repeated-seed variance, the RGB gains in Table 1 are optimistically biased. Moreover, the claim that 1:2:2 is 'best overall' is not demonstrated by Table 3, where HIRAG 1:1:1 (96.6) and HIRAG 2:1:1 (96.3) achieve higher RGB-noise accuracy than HIRAG 1:2:2 (94.6).
  2. [Appendix A.2] The manuscript states that the authors manually corrected errors in the RGB dataset and will provide the corrected version upon request. Since the baseline numbers in Table 1 (GPT-4, GPT-4o-mini, ChatQA, etc.) are evidently measured on the original RGB, the comparison between HIRAG and those baselines on RGB-noise/RGB-int is not controlled: differences could be due to corrections rather than to the training method. The corrected dataset should be released with the paper, baselines should be re-run on it, or the authors should evaluate HIRAG on the original dataset and quantify the effect of the corrections.
  3. [Section 4.1, Tables 1-4] No error bars, standard deviations, or significance tests are reported for any experimental result, yet the abstract and Section 4.2 describe the improvements as 'significant.' Some of the decisive margins are small in absolute terms (e.g., PubMedQA EM: HIRAG(Llama2-7B) 73.7 vs RAFT 73.3; RGB-noise: HIRAG(Llama3-8B) 94.6 vs ChatQA-2.0 91.6), and single-run results cannot establish that these differences are reliable. Multiple seeds and variance reporting, or a significance test, are needed to support the central claim.
  4. [Section 3.3 i, Appendix A.1/A.2] The training-data construction uses documents from the training sets of HotpotQA and PubMedQA, and evaluation is performed on those same benchmarks. The paper does not specify whether the evaluation split shares documents with the training source or whether any document-level overlap is removed; this creates a potential leakage path (the model may have been trained on the very paragraphs it is asked to reason over at test time). Please report the exact splits, check for overlap, and remove any overlapping documents from the training corpus.
  5. [Section 3.3 iv, Figure 13] The synthetic training data is generated by GPT-4-turbo/Qwen-MAX and verified by GPT-4, but the paper reports no quantitative verification statistics (e.g., pass rate per task) and no independent human audit. If the synthetic queries, thoughts, or answers contain systematic stylistic or factual patterns, the model may learn those surface patterns rather than transferable RAG skills; the claim that the curriculum is the cause of the gains would be strengthened by reporting the Figure 3 numbers and a small human evaluation of sample quality.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 3.1] The heading 'RAG-pecific Reasoning Abilities' contains a typo; it should be 'RAG-Specific.'
  2. [Section 3.3 vs Algorithm 1] The main text says queries are generated with GPT-4-turbo or Qwen-MAX, while Algorithm 1 lists 'GPT-4o' as the strong LLM; please make the teacher model naming consistent.
  3. [Section 4.3 and Table 2] The text mentions Qwen2.5-72B, but Table 2 lists Qwen2.5-70B; please make the model size consistent.
  4. [Section 4.4] The phrase 'best overall performance' is undefined; specify the criterion (e.g., average accuracy over RGB-noise and RGB-int, or a joint English/Chinese measure).
  5. [Appendix A.2] The corrected RGB dataset should be provided as supplementary material rather than 'upon request' to support reproducibility.
  6. [Figure 3] The quality-verification results are shown only as a figure; report the numerical pass/fail rates for each task in the text.
  7. [Section 4.1] The statement that for RankRAG and RAFT the authors 'select parts of their evaluation results' should be clarified; if these methods did not report all benchmark subsets, say so explicitly to avoid the appearance of cherry-picking.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: HIRAG is evaluated on external benchmarks whose QA components are excluded from training-data construction, and no claimed result reduces by construction to a fitted input or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a hierarchical CoT instruction-tuning curriculum improves zero-shot RAG performance. The derivation chain is: construct ~120K synthetic RAG training samples from documents (Section 3.3 and Algorithm 1), fine-tune backbone LLMs, and evaluate on external benchmarks (RGB, PopQA, HotpotQA, MuSiQue, PubMedQA, and Chinese RGB) against fixed baselines. The training construction deliberately uses only documents from HotpotQA and PubMedQA 'without incorporating their QA components' (Section 3.3 i), so the evaluation questions and answers are not inputs to the training data. No model parameter is fitted to the benchmark outputs; the reported numbers are independent measurements from the trained models. The only tuned hyperparameter is the task-data ratio, selected using RGB ablations (Section 4.4, Tables 3-4), and the sentence 'we selected a model trained with a 1:2:2 ratio ... which demonstrated the best overall performance' shows test-set model selection. That is a methodological selection-bias concern, not circularity: the selected model's RGB accuracy is an empirical measurement, not a quantity forced to equal the selection rule by construction, and the main results include many datasets beyond RGB. Citations to prior work, including the overlapping-author Gan et al. 2024, appear in related work and are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from a self-citation. The limitations section acknowledges heavy dependence on documents containing answers and the need for domain-specific two-stage training, which are honest scope statements rather than circular moves. Overall, the evaluation is self-contained against external benchmarks, and no derivation step reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the LLM-generated synthetic curriculum is both correct and representative, that the three abilities are independently trainable and progressive, and that the selected benchmarks measure those abilities. The data ratio 1:2:2 is a free hyperparameter fitted to the test set. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • training_data_ratio_F:C:R = 1:2:2
    Ablation in Section 4.4 selects this ratio based on best RGB-int/RGB-noise performance on the evaluation sets; it is a hyperparameter tuned on test data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The three RAG abilities (filtering, combination, reasoning) are progressively hierarchical and can be trained separately.
    Section 3.1 defines the hierarchy; the progressive curriculum assumes learning simpler tasks first helps harder tasks, which is not proven.
  • domain assumption LLM-generated synthetic data with LLM-based verification is sufficiently correct to teach the target abilities.
    Section 3.3 iv uses GPT-4 to verify answers; if generator and verifier share biases, the training signal is contaminated.
  • domain assumption Zero-shot accuracy on RGB, PopQA, HotpotQA, MuSiQue, and PubMedQA measures the claimed RAG abilities.
    Section 4.1 assumes these benchmarks reflect real RAG filtering, combination, and reasoning.
  • domain assumption Supervised fine-tuning with CoT special tokens transfers the thought process to greedy decoding at test time.
    Used in Sections 3.2 and A.2, relying on standard SFT generalization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HIRAG: Hierarchical-Thought Instruction-Tuning Retrieval-Augmented Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QH57IUSW

@misc{pith2026250705714,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HIRAG: Hierarchical-Thought Instruction-Tuning Retrieval-Augmented Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QH57IUSW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05714}
}
read the original abstract

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become a fundamental paradigm for addressing the challenges faced by large language models in handling real-time information and domain-specific problems. Traditional RAG systems primarily rely on the in-context learning (ICL) capabilities of the large language model itself. Still, in-depth research on the specific capabilities needed by the RAG generation model is lacking, leading to challenges with inconsistent document quality and retrieval system imperfections. Even the limited studies that fine-tune RAG generative models often \textit{lack a granular focus on RAG task} or \textit{a deeper utilization of chain-of-thought processes}. To address this, we propose that RAG models should possess three progressively hierarchical abilities (1) Filtering: the ability to select relevant information; (2) Combination: the ability to combine semantic information across paragraphs; and (3) RAG-specific reasoning: the ability to further process external knowledge using internal knowledge. Thus, we introduce our new RAG instruction fine-tuning method, Hierarchical-Thought Instruction-Tuning Retrieval-Augmented Generation (HIRAG) incorporates a "think before answering" strategy. This method enhances the model's open-book examination capability by utilizing multi-level progressive chain-of-thought. Experiments show that the HIRAG training strategy significantly improves the model's performance on datasets such as RGB, PopQA, MuSiQue, HotpotQA, and PubmedQA.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05714 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Traditional RAG methods have primarily focused on retrieving relevant information, with less emphasis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the HIRAG strategy: We design three progressively challenging tasks while establishing an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results of Data Quality Verification answers are not only accurate but also consistently reproducible, thus ensuring the reliability of the sample data.The final quality verification results of the dataset are illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A case study on Musique. illustrating the effectiveness of HIRAG-8B over Llama-8B-Instruct. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Train Data Example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Filtering Prompt Template [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Combination Prompt Template [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparative-Reasoning Query Prompt Template. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Casual-Reasoning Query Prompt Template [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Deductive-Reasoning Query Prompt Template. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Reasoning Thought&Answer Prompt Template. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Task Definition Compliance Prompt Template. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: To verify the correctness of the synthetic data answers, we additionally used GPT-4 to directly answer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]

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. Full citation record

  1. PRGB Benchmark: A Robust Placeholder-Assisted Algorithm for Benchmarking Retrieval-Augmented Generation

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    PRGB introduces a placeholder-based, fine-grained RAG benchmark that evaluates LLMs on filtering, combination, and multi-hop reasoning, with English and Chinese datasets.

  2. GOSU: Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Global-Level Optimized Semantic Unit-Centric Framework

    cs.CL 2025-08 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    GOSU globally merges semantic units from text chunks into a unit-centric knowledge graph and uses three-tier keyword retrieval to improve RAG generation quality, according to LLM-judge win rates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Akari Asai, Sewon Min, Zexuan Zhong, and Danqi Chen. 2023 a . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-tutorials.6 Retrieval-based language models and applications . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 6: Tutorial Abstracts), pages 41--46, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-tutorials.6 2023

  2. [2]

    Akari Asai, Zeqiu Wu, Yizhong Wang, Avirup Sil, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.11511 Self-rag: Learning to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection . Preprint, arXiv:2310.11511

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

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

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Jiawei Chen, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, and Le Sun. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01431 Benchmarking large language models in retrieval-augmented generation . Preprint, arXiv:2309.01431

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Chunjing Gan, Dan Yang, Binbin Hu, Hanxiao Zhang, Siyuan Li, Ziqi Liu, Yue Shen, Lin Ju, Zhiqiang Zhang, Jinjie Gu, Lei Liang, and Jun Zhou. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.19893 Similarity is not all you need: Endowing retrieval augmented generation with multi layered thoughts . Preprint, arXiv:2405.19893

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

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

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Michael Glass, Gaetano Rossiello, Md Faisal Mahbub Chowdhury, Ankita Rajaram Naik, Pengshan Cai, and Alfio Gliozzo. 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.06300 Re2g: Retrieve, rerank, generate . Preprint, arXiv:2207.06300

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, and Aiesha Letman et al. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21783 The llama 3 herd of models . Preprint, arXiv:2407.21783

    arXiv 2024

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Ming-Wei Chang. 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.08909 Realm: Retrieval-augmented language model pre-training . Preprint, arXiv:2002.08909

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Gautier Izacard, Mathilde Caron, Lucas Hosseini, Sebastian Riedel, Piotr Bojanowski, Armand Joulin, and Edouard Grave. 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.09118 Unsupervised dense information retrieval with contrastive learning . Preprint, arXiv:2112.09118

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

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

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Cohen, and Xinghua Lu

    Qiao Jin, Bhuwan Dhingra, Zhengping Liu, William W. Cohen, and Xinghua Lu. 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.06146 Pubmedqa: A dataset for biomedical research question answering . Preprint, arXiv:1909.06146

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica

    Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.06180 Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention . Preprint, arXiv:2309.06180

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    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. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11401 Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-int...

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Liu, Tianyi Zhang, and Percy Liang

    Nelson F. Liu, Tianyi Zhang, and Percy Liang. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.09848 Evaluating verifiability in generative search engines . Preprint, arXiv:2304.09848

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Zihan Liu, Wei Ping, Rajarshi Roy, Peng Xu, Chankyu Lee, Mohammad Shoeybi, and Bryan Catanzaro. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.10225 Chatqa: Surpassing gpt-4 on conversational qa and rag . Preprint, arXiv:2401.10225

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.10511 When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness of parametric and non-parametric memories . Preprint, arXiv:2212.10511

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    OpenAI, Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, and Diogo Almeida et al. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774 Gpt-4 technical report . Preprint, arXiv:2303.08774

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ori Ram, Yoav Levine, Itay Dalmedigos, Dor Muhlgay, Amnon Shashua, Kevin Leyton-Brown, and Yoav Shoham. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.00083 In-context retrieval-augmented language models . Preprint, arXiv:2302.00083

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Tobias Schimanski, Jingwei Ni, Mathias Kraus, Elliott Ash, and Markus Leippold. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08277 Towards faithful and robust llm specialists for evidence-based question-answering . Preprint, arXiv:2402.08277

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Freda Shi, Xinyun Chen, Kanishka Misra, Nathan Scales, David Dohan, Ed Chi, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.00093 Large language models can be easily distracted by irrelevant context . Preprint, arXiv:2302.00093

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Weijia Shi, Sewon Min, Michihiro Yasunaga, Minjoon Seo, Richard James, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Wen-tau Yih. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.463 REPLUG : Retrieval-augmented black-box language models . In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the Nor...

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, Dan Bikel, Lukas Blecher, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Moya Chen, Guillem Cucurull, David Esiobu, Jude Fernandes, Jeremy Fu, W...

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.00573 Musique: Multihop questions via single-hop question composition . Preprint, arXiv:2108.00573

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Boxin Wang, Wei Ping, Lawrence McAfee, Peng Xu, Bo Li, Mohammad Shoeybi, and Bryan Catanzaro. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.07713 Instructretro: Instruction tuning post retrieval-augmented pretraining . Preprint, arXiv:2310.07713

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903 Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2201.11903

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Zhepei Wei, Wei-Lin Chen, and Yu Meng. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.13629 Instructrag: Instructing retrieval-augmented generation via self-synthesized rationales . Preprint, arXiv:2406.13629

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Peng Xu, Wei Ping, Xianchao Wu, Chejian Xu, Zihan Liu, Mohammad Shoeybi, and Bryan Catanzaro. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.14482 Chatqa 2: Bridging the gap to proprietary llms in long context and rag capabilities . Preprint, arXiv:2407.14482

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D

    Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William W. Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D. Manning. 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.09600 Hotpotqa: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering . Preprint, arXiv:1809.09600

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Yue Yu, Wei Ping, Zihan Liu, Boxin Wang, Jiaxuan You, Chao Zhang, Mohammad Shoeybi, and Bryan Catanzaro. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.02485 Rankrag: Unifying context ranking with retrieval-augmented generation in llms . Preprint, arXiv:2407.02485

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Patil, Naman Jain, Sheng Shen, Matei Zaharia, Ion Stoica, and Joseph E

    Tianjun Zhang, Shishir G. Patil, Naman Jain, Sheng Shen, Matei Zaharia, Ion Stoica, and Joseph E. Gonzalez. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.10131 Raft: Adapting language model to domain specific rag . Preprint, arXiv:2403.10131

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Yue Zhang, Yafu Li, Leyang Cui, Deng Cai, Lemao Liu, Tingchen Fu, Xinting Huang, Enbo Zhao, Yu Zhang, Yulong Chen, Longyue Wang, Anh Tuan Luu, Wei Bi, Freda Shi, and Shuming Shi. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01219 Siren's song in the ai ocean: A survey on hallucination in ...

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Yuetong Zhao, Hongyu Cao, Xianyu Zhao, and Zhijian Ou. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15569 An empirical study of retrieval augmented generation with chain-of-thought . Preprint, arXiv:2407.15569

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  27. [35]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.