Does Generative Retrieval Overcome the Limitations of Dense Retrieval?

Generative retrieval (GR) has emerged as a new paradigm in neural information retrieval, offering an alternative to dense retrieval (DR) by directly generating identifiers of relevant documents. In this paper, we theoretically and empirically investigate how GR fundamentally diverges from DR in both learning objectives and representational capacity. GR performs globally normalized maximum-likelihood optimization and encodes corpus and relevance information directly in the model parameters, whereas DR adopts locally normalized objectives and represents the corpus with external embeddings before computing similarity via a bilinear interaction. Our analysis suggests that, under scaling, GR can overcome the inherent limitations of DR, yielding two major benefits. First, with larger corpora, GR avoids the sharp performance degradation caused by the optimization drift induced by DR's local normalization. Second, with larger models, GR's representational capacity scales with parameter size, unconstrained by the global low-rank structure that limits DR. We validate these theoretical insights through controlled experiments on the Natural Questions and MS MARCO datasets, across varying negative sampling strategies, embedding dimensions, and model scales. But despite its theoretical advantages, GR does not universally outperform DR in practice. We outline directions to bridge the gap between GR's theoretical potential and practical performance, providing guidance for future research in scalable and robust generative retrieval.

On the Scaling of Robustness and Effectiveness in Dense Retrieval

Robustness and Effectiveness are critical aspects of developing dense retrieval models for real-world applications. It is known that there is a trade-off between the two. Recent work has addressed scaling laws of effectiveness in dense retrieval, revealing a power-law relationship between effectiveness and the size of models and data. Does robustness follow scaling laws too? If so, can scaling improve both robustness and effectiveness together, or do they remain locked in a trade-off? To answer these questions, we conduct a comprehensive experimental study. We find that:(i) Robustness, including out-of-distribution and adversarial robustness, also follows a scaling law.(ii) Robustness and effectiveness exhibit different scaling patterns, leading to significant resource costs when jointly improving both. Given these findings, we shift to the third factor that affects model performance, namely the optimization strategy, beyond the model size and data size. We find that: (i) By fitting different optimization strategies, the joint performance of robustness and effectiveness traces out a Pareto frontier. (ii) When the optimization strategy strays from Pareto efficiency, the joint performance scales in a sub-optimal direction. (iii) By adjusting the optimization weights to fit the Pareto efficiency, we can achieve Pareto training, where the scaling of joint performance becomes most efficient. Even without requiring additional resources, Pareto training is comparable to the performance of scaling resources several times under optimization strategies that overly prioritize either robustness or effectiveness. Finally, we demonstrate that our findings can help deploy dense retrieval models in real-world applications that scale efficiently and are balanced for robustness and effectiveness.

Chain-of-Thought Poisoning Attacks against R1-based Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems can effectively mitigate the hallucination problem of large language models (LLMs),but they also possess inherent vulnerabilities. Identifying these weaknesses before the large-scale real-world deployment of RAG systems is of great importance, as it lays the foundation for building more secure and robust RAG systems in the future. Existing adversarial attack methods typically exploit knowledge base poisoning to probe the vulnerabilities of RAG systems, which can effectively deceive standard RAG models. However, with the rapid advancement of deep reasoning capabilities in modern LLMs, previous approaches that merely inject incorrect knowledge are inadequate when attacking RAG systems equipped with deep reasoning abilities. Inspired by the deep thinking capabilities of LLMs, this paper extracts reasoning process templates from R1-based RAG systems, uses these templates to wrap erroneous knowledge into adversarial documents, and injects them into the knowledge base to attack RAG systems. The key idea of our approach is that adversarial documents, by simulating the chain-of-thought patterns aligned with the model's training signals, may be misinterpreted by the model as authentic historical reasoning processes, thus increasing their likelihood of being referenced. Experiments conducted on the MS MARCO passage ranking dataset demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed method.

An Empirical Study of Evaluating Long-form Question Answering

\Ac{LFQA} aims to generate lengthy answers to complex questions. This scenario presents great flexibility as well as significant challenges for evaluation. Most evaluations rely on deterministic metrics that depend on string or n-gram matching, while the reliability of large language model-based evaluations for long-form answers remains relatively unexplored. We address this gap by conducting an in-depth study of long-form answer evaluation with the following research questions: (i) To what extent do existing automatic evaluation metrics serve as a substitute for human evaluations? (ii) What are the limitations of existing evaluation metrics compared to human evaluations? (iii) How can the effectiveness and robustness of existing evaluation methods be improved? We collect 5,236 factoid and non-factoid long-form answers generated by different large language models and conduct a human evaluation on 2,079 of them, focusing on correctness and informativeness. Subsequently, we investigated the performance of automatic evaluation metrics by evaluating these answers, analyzing the consistency between these metrics and human evaluations. We find that the style, length of the answers, and the category of questions can bias the automatic evaluation metrics. However, fine-grained evaluation helps mitigate this issue on some metrics. Our findings have important implications for the use of large language models for evaluating long-form question answering. All code and datasets are available at https://github.com/bugtig6351/lfqa_evaluation.

TrustRAG: An Information Assistant with Retrieval Augmented Generation

\Ac{RAG} has emerged as a crucial technique for enhancing large models with real-time and domain-specific knowledge. While numerous improvements and open-source tools have been proposed to refine the \ac{RAG} framework for accuracy, relatively little attention has been given to improving the trustworthiness of generated results. To address this gap, we introduce TrustRAG, a novel framework that enhances \ac{RAG} from three perspectives: indexing, retrieval, and generation. Specifically, in the indexing stage, we propose a semantic-enhanced chunking strategy that incorporates hierarchical indexing to supplement each chunk with contextual information, ensuring semantic completeness. In the retrieval stage, we introduce a utility-based filtering mechanism to identify high-quality information, supporting answer generation while reducing input length. In the generation stage, we propose fine-grained citation enhancement, which detects opinion-bearing sentences in responses and infers citation relationships at the sentence-level, thereby improving citation accuracy. We open-source the TrustRAG framework and provide a demonstration studio designed for excerpt-based question answering tasks \footnote{https://huggingface.co/spaces/golaxy/TrustRAG}. Based on these, we aim to help researchers: 1) systematically enhancing the trustworthiness of \ac{RAG} systems and (2) developing their own \ac{RAG} systems with more reliable outputs.

Attack-in-the-Chain: Bootstrapping Large Language Models for Attacks Against Black-box Neural Ranking Models

Neural ranking models (NRMs) have been shown to be highly effective in terms of retrieval performance. Unfortunately, they have also displayed a higher degree of sensitivity to attacks than previous generation models. To help expose and address this lack of robustness, we introduce a novel ranking attack framework named Attack-in-the-Chain, which tracks interactions between large language models (LLMs) and NRMs based on chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting to generate adversarial examples under black-box settings. Our approach starts by identifying anchor documents with higher ranking positions than the target document as nodes in the reasoning chain. We then dynamically assign the number of perturbation words to each node and prompt LLMs to execute attacks. Finally, we verify the attack performance of all nodes at each reasoning step and proceed to generate the next reasoning step. Empirical results on two web search benchmarks show the effectiveness of our method.

HEC-GCN: Hypergraph Enhanced Cascading Graph Convolution Network for Multi-Behavior Recommendation

Multi-behavior recommendation (MBR) has garnered growing attention recently due to its ability to mitigate the sparsity issue by inferring user preferences from various auxiliary behaviors to improve predictions for the target behavior. Although existing research on MBR has yielded impressive results, they still face two major limitations. First, previous methods mainly focus on modeling fine-grained interaction information between users and items under each behavior, which may suffer from sparsity issue. Second, existing models usually concentrate on exploiting dependencies between two consecutive behaviors, leaving intra- and inter-behavior consistency largely unexplored. To the end, we propose a novel approach named Hypergraph Enhanced Cascading Graph Convolution Network for multi-behavior recommendation (HEC-GCN). To be specific, we first explore both fine- and coarse-grained correlations among users or items of each behavior by simultaneously modeling the behavior-specific interaction graph and its corresponding hypergraph in a cascaded manner. Then, we propose a behavior consistency-guided alignment strategy that ensures consistent representations between the interaction graph and its associated hypergraph for each behavior, while also maintaining representation consistency across different behaviors. Extensive experiments and analyses on three public benchmark datasets demonstrate that our proposed approach is consistently superior to previous state-of-the-art methods due to its capability to effectively attenuate the sparsity issue as well as preserve both intra- and inter-behavior consistencies. The code is available at https://github.com/marqu22/HEC-GCN.git.

A Claim Decomposition Benchmark for Long-form Answer Verification

The advancement of LLMs has significantly boosted the performance of complex long-form question answering tasks. However, one prominent issue of LLMs is the generated "hallucination" responses that are not factual. Consequently, attribution for each claim in responses becomes a common solution to improve the factuality and verifiability. Existing researches mainly focus on how to provide accurate citations for the response, which largely overlook the importance of identifying the claims or statements for each response. To bridge this gap, we introduce a new claim decomposition benchmark, which requires building system that can identify atomic and checkworthy claims for LLM responses. Specifically, we present the Chinese Atomic Claim Decomposition Dataset (CACDD), which builds on the WebCPM dataset with additional expert annotations to ensure high data quality. The CACDD encompasses a collection of 500 human-annotated question-answer pairs, including a total of 4956 atomic claims. We further propose a new pipeline for human annotation and describe the challenges of this task. In addition, we provide experiment results on zero-shot, few-shot and fine-tuned LLMs as baselines. The results show that the claim decomposition is highly challenging and requires further explorations. All code and data are publicly available at \url{https://github.com/FBzzh/CACDD}.

On the Capacity of Citation Generation by Large Language Models

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) appears as a promising method to alleviate the "hallucination" problem in large language models (LLMs), since it can incorporate external traceable resources for response generation. The essence of RAG in combating the hallucination issue lies in accurately attributing claims in responses to the corresponding retrieved documents. However, most of existing works focus on improving the quality of generated responses from the LLM, while largely overlooked its ability to attribute sources accurately. In this study, we conduct a systematic analysis about the capabilities of LLMs in generating citations within response generation, and further introduce a novel method to enhance their citation generation abilities. Specifically, we evaluate both the correctness and citation quality for seven widely-used LLMs on two benchmark datasets. Meanwhile, we introduce new citation evaluation metrics to eliminate the over-penalization of unnecessary and excessive citations in existing metrics. Furthermore, we propose a Generate-then-Refine method that completes relevant citations and removes irrelevant ones without altering the response text. The results on WebGLM-QA, ASQA and ELI5 datasets show that our method substantially improves the quality of citations in responses generated by LLMs.

Controlling Risk of Retrieval-augmented Generation: A Counterfactual Prompting Framework

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a popular solution to mitigate the hallucination issues of large language models. However, existing studies on RAG seldom address the issue of predictive uncertainty, i.e., how likely it is that a RAG model's prediction is incorrect, resulting in uncontrollable risks in real-world applications. In this work, we emphasize the importance of risk control, ensuring that RAG models proactively refuse to answer questions with low confidence. Our research identifies two critical latent factors affecting RAG's confidence in its predictions: the quality of the retrieved results and the manner in which these results are utilized. To guide RAG models in assessing their own confidence based on these two latent factors, we develop a counterfactual prompting framework that induces the models to alter these factors and analyzes the effect on their answers. We also introduce a benchmarking procedure to collect answers with the option to abstain, facilitating a series of experiments. For evaluation, we introduce several risk-related metrics and the experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach.