AI summary · arXiv: 2305.09612v1 · cs.CL

Large Language Models are Built-in Autoregressive Search Engines

Noah Ziems, Wenhao Yu, Zhihan Zhang, Meng Jiang

Original paper · DOI Submitted to arXiv on 16 May. 2023 Accepted to ACL 2023 Findings License: CC BY 4.0

How to read this summary? Illustrated guide

The essentials

  • Large language models (LLMs) can generate Web URLs for document retrieval based on query-URL pairs as demonstrations.
  • LLMs can act as built-in search engines without explicit training for mapping questions to document identifiers.
  • LLMs achieve nearly 90% accuracy in generating URLs that lead to documents with correct answers to open-domain questions.
  • The method consistently outperforms existing retrieval approaches on three open-domain question answering benchmarks, in both zero-shot and few-shot settings.
  • Future research directions include fine-tuning prompts for individual questions and using clustering to select diverse demonstrations for improved retrieval performance.
  • Limitations include the need for retraining when updating knowledge, potential hallucination errors, and slow web requests and document processing.
  • A case study comparing LLM-URL approach with Contriever and BM25 retrievers shows superior performance in retrieving answer-containing documents.
  • LLMs offer effective URL generation for document retrieval but face challenges related to knowledge updating, hallucination errors, and practical usability.

Key points written by AI: they may contain errors, check them against the paper.

AI-generated keywords: Large Language Models Document Retrieval Query-URL Pairs Contriever BM25

Read further

  • Comprehensive Summary
  • Layman's Summary
  • Blog article
  • Original abstract
This paper investigates the use of large language models (LLMs) for document retrieval by generating URLs prompted by human instructions. The authors find that by providing a few (query, URL) pairs as in-context demonstrations, LLMs can generate Web URLs where nearly 90% of the corresponding documents contain correct answers to open-domain questions. This suggests that LLMs can act as built-in search engines without explicit training for mapping questions to document identifiers. Experimental results demonstrate that this method consistently outperforms existing retrieval approaches on three open-domain question answering benchmarks, both in zero-shot and few-shot settings. The authors also explore future directions for research. They discuss the potential for further tuning the few-shot demonstrations for specific retrieval tasks and improving retrieval performance by fine-tuning prompts for individual questions. They mention prior work on using clustering to select diverse demonstrations which has shown improvements in retrieval and downstream QA performance. However, there are limitations to their approach. The current method is limited in its ability to update knowledge state and adapt to new domains; adding new knowledge would likely require retraining the large language model. Additionally, large generation models may suffer from hallucination errors leading to incorrect predictions. The approach also involves slow web requests and document processing making it cumbersome to use in practice. To illustrate the advantages of their LLM-URL approach over existing methods a case study is presented comparing it with Contriever and BM25 retrievers in a closed-book setting; LLM-URL performs significantly better by retrieving documents containing the answer while Contriever and BM25 fail to do so. In conclusion, this paper demonstrates that LLMs can effectively generate URLs for document retrieval when provided with query-URL pairs as demonstrations; showing superior retrieval performance compared to existing approaches on various benchmarks. However, there are still challenges regarding knowledge updating, hallucination errors and practical usability that need further exploration.

Was this synthesis useful?

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Figures and plots

Ask about a figure by number or use its question button to request visual analysis. Up to two figures and four image panels per question. Values read from plots are approximate; check the original data.

AI assistant instructions?

Tools for this paper

Explain it differently 3 free rewrites left today
Save to a collection Group papers in collections to compare them, chat with them and export them. Create a free account Log in

Advanced tools Premium

For researchers who follow a field closely: citation alerts, journal-club slides, version comparison and Zotero export. Discover Premium

Zotero
Citation alerts Citation alerts guide
Journal club Premium+ Slides to present it

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.