Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
51 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
60 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
44 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
8 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Eliciting Critical Reasoning in Retrieval-Augmented Language Models via Contrastive Explanations (2410.22874v1)

Published 30 Oct 2024 in cs.CL and cs.AI
Eliciting Critical Reasoning in Retrieval-Augmented Language Models via Contrastive Explanations

Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a critical mechanism in contemporary NLP to support LLMs(LLMs) in systematically accessing richer factual context. However, the integration of RAG mechanisms brings its inherent challenges, as LLMs need to deal with potentially noisy contexts. Recent studies have shown that LLMs still struggle to critically analyse RAG-based in-context information, a limitation that may lead to incorrect inferences and hallucinations. In this paper, we investigate how to elicit critical reasoning in RAG via contrastive explanations. In particular, we propose Contrastive-RAG (C-RAG), a framework that (i) retrieves relevant documents given a query, (ii) selects and exemplifies relevant passages, and (iii) generates explanations that explicitly contrast the relevance of the passages to (iv) support the final answer. We show the impact of C-RAG building contrastive reasoning demonstrations from LLMs to instruct smaller models for retrieval-augmented tasks. Extensive experiments demonstrate that C-RAG improves state-of-the-art RAG models while (a) requiring significantly fewer prompts and demonstrations and (b) being robust to perturbations in the retrieved documents.

PDF HTML Abstract

Eliciting Critical Reasoning in Retrieval-Augmented LLMs via Contrastive Explanations

The presented paper addresses a notable challenge in the domain of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) employed within LLMs. Although RAG methodologies enhance factuality and extend the knowledge base of LLMs by incorporating external information during generation, they are susceptible to errors introduced by noisy in-context passages. This leads to potential biases, misinterpretations, and hallucinations by the models. To mitigate these shortcomings, the paper proposes Contrastive-RAG (C-RAG), a framework designed to introduce and leverage contrastive explanations to elicit critical reasoning in retrieval-augmented tasks.

The core of the C-RAG framework is structured around four distinct phases: retrieval of relevant documents, extraction and reasoning of relevant passages, generation of contrastive explanations, and formulation of the final answer. By leveraging these sequential stages, C-RAG aims to not only improve the assessment of in-context document relevance but also significantly bolster the overall performance of RAG systems. Notably, the framework exemplifies the potential of building reasoning demonstrations from larger LLMs to instruct smaller models effectively.

One of the standout aspects of the C-RAG approach is its operational efficiency and robustness. The paper reports substantial improvements on several public QA benchmarks, showcasing C-RAG's ability to enhance model accuracy by 55.4% on average over standard RAG methods. Further, C-RAG maintains robustness to perturbations within retrieved documents — a common failing point of traditional retrieval mechanisms.

A particularly intriguing finding is that C-RAG requires substantially fewer training prompts and annotation steps compared to contemporary methodologies like Self-RAG or Self-Reasoning. Remarkably, C-RAG achieves its performance gains with approximately 2,000 training examples compared to the 190,000 examples required by some techniques. This highlights a promising direction towards efficient and scalable training protocols in NLP.

The paper also introduces the concept of contrastive explanations to the RAG pipeline. By systematically generating explanations that elucidate the differential relevance of retrieved passages, C-RAG enhances models' ability to critically reason with external information sources. This novel integration stands as the first exploration of contrastive reasoning within the confines of RAG, showcasing significant performance uplift across multiple tasks.

From an epistemological and cognitive science perspective, the paper situates contrastive explanations as fundamental mechanisms for enhanced comprehension in AI systems. By establishing a reasoning process that poses questions of the form "Why P rather than Q?", C-RAG effectively partitions retrieved documents into contrasting classes that facilitate clear and evidence-based decision making.

Despite its contributions, C-RAG predominantly relies on advanced LLMs like GPT-4 for generating high-quality contrastive reasoning demonstrations. While this dependence is presently feasible in research settings, the extension of such methodologies to a broader range of smaller and more accessible models remains a pending practical challenge.

Looking forward, the implications of this research are multi-fold. In practice, incorporating structured contrastive reasoning could significantly improve model transparency, interpretability, and accuracy in real-world applications like automated QA, fact verification, and beyond. Theoretically, it poses questions about the nature and limits of current NLP models' reasoning abilities, offering a pathway to deeper understanding and refinement. As AI technology continues to advance, the exploration initiated by C-RAG could pave the way for more nuanced and humanlike reasoning processes within machines.

File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com PDF File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Markdown Bookmark Chat Bubble Oval Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Chat (Pro)
Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (40)
  1. Self-rag: Learning to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection.
  2. Inference to the best explanation in large language models. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 217–235, Bangkok, Thailand. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  3. A survey on rag meeting llms: Towards retrieval-augmented large language models. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ’24, page 6491–6501, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.
  4. RARR: Researching and revising what language models say, using language models. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 16477–16508, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  5. Enabling large language models to generate text with citations. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6465–6488, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  6. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey.
  7. Using natural language explanations to improve robustness of in-context learning. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 13477–13499, Bangkok, Thailand. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  8. Unsupervised dense information retrieval with contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.09118.
  9. Active retrieval augmented generation. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7969–7992, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  10. TriviaQA: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1601–1611, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  11. Large language models struggle to learn long-tail knowledge.
  12. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6769–6781, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  13. Natural questions: A benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:452–466.
  14. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9459–9474.
  15. Large language models with controllable working memory. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 1774–1793, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  16. Peter Lipton. 1990. Contrastive explanation. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 27:247–266.
  17. Evaluating verifiability in generative search engines. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 7001–7025, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  18. When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness of parametric and non-parametric memories. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 9802–9822, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  19. Teaching language models to support answers with verified quotes.
  20. Tim Miller. 2019. Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial intelligence, 267:1–38.
  21. OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report.
  22. Instruction tuning with gpt-4.
  23. How context affects language models’ factual predictions.
  24. Enhancing ethical explanations of large language models through iterative symbolic refinement. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1–22, St. Julian’s, Malta. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  25. Verification and refinement of natural language explanations through llm-symbolic theorem proving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01379.
  26. In-context retrieval-augmented language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11:1316–1331.
  27. Leonardo Ranaldi and Andre Freitas. 2024a. Aligning large and small language models via chain-of-thought reasoning. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1812–1827, St. Julian’s, Malta. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  28. Leonardo Ranaldi and Andrè Freitas. 2024b. Self-refine instruction-tuning for aligning reasoning in language models.
  29. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04761.
  30. Large language models can be easily distracted by irrelevant context.
  31. Improving the domain adaptation of retrieval augmented generation (RAG) models for open domain question answering. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11:1–17.
  32. FEVER: a large-scale dataset for fact extraction and VERification. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 809–819, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  33. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288.
  34. Improving retrieval augmented language model with self-reasoning.
  35. Recomp: Improving retrieval-augmented lms with compression and selective augmentation.
  36. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models.
  37. The unreliability of explanations in few-shot prompting for textual reasoning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:30378–30392.
  38. Making retrieval-augmented language models robust to irrelevant context.
  39. Raft: Adapting language model to domain specific rag.
  40. Siren’s song in the ai ocean: A survey on hallucination in large language models.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (3)
  1. Leonardo Ranaldi (18 papers)
  2. Marco Valentino (46 papers)
  3. Andrè Freitas (3 papers)
X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets