Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is an effective solution to supplement necessary knowledge to large language models (LLMs). Targeting its bottleneck of retriever performance, “generate-then-read” pipeline is proposed to replace the retrieval stage with generation from the LLM itself. Although promising, this research direction is underexplored and still cannot work in the scenario when source knowledge is given. In this paper, we formalize a general “A + B” framework with varying combinations of foundation models and types for systematic investigation. We explore the efficacy of the base and chat versions of LLMs and found their different functionalities suitable for generator A and reader B, respectively. Their combinations consistently outperform single models, especially in complex scenarios. Furthermore, we extend the application of the “A + B” framework to scenarios involving source documents through continuous learning, enabling the direct integration of external knowledge into LLMs. This approach not only facilitates effective acquisition of new knowledge but also addresses the challenges of safety and helpfulness post-adaptation. The paper underscores the versatility of the “A + B” framework, demonstrating its potential to enhance the practical application of LLMs across various domains.

While LLMs have made notable advancements in natural language processing, they continue to struggle with processing extensive text. Memory mechanisms offer a flexible solution for managing long contexts, utilizing techniques such as compression, summarization, and structuring to facilitate nuanced and efficient handling of large volumes of text. However, existing techniques face challenges with static knowledge integration, leading to insufficient adaptation to task-specific needs and missing multi-segmentation relationships, which hinders the dynamic reorganization and logical combination of relevant segments during the response process. To address these issues, we introduce a novel strategy, Question then Reflection Memory Mechanism (QRMeM), which incorporates a dual-structured memory pool. This pool synergizes static textual content with structured graph guidance, fostering a reflective trial-and-error approach for navigating and identifying relevant segments. Our evaluation across multiple-choice questions (MCQ) and multi-document question answering (Multi-doc QA) benchmarks showcases QRMeM’s enhanced performance compared to existing approaches.

This paper introduces the innovative “LLMs-as-Instructors” framework, which leverages the advanced Large Language Models (LLMs) to autonomously enhance the training of smaller target models. Inspired by the theory of “Learning from Errors”, this framework employs an instructor LLM to meticulously analyze the specific errors within a target model, facilitating targeted and efficient training cycles. Within this framework, we implement two strategies: “Learning from Error,” which focuses solely on incorrect responses to tailor training data, and “Learning from Error by Contrast,” which uses contrastive learning to analyze both correct and incorrect responses for a deeper understanding of errors. Our empirical studies, conducted with several open-source models, demonstrate significant improvements across multiple benchmarks, including mathematical reasoning, coding abilities, and factual knowledge. Notably, the refined Llama-3-8b-Instruction has outperformed ChatGPT, illustrating the effectiveness of our approach. By leveraging the strengths of both strategies, we have attained a more balanced performance improvement on both in-domain and out-of-domain benchmarks.

This study investigates the behaviors of Large Language Models (LLMs) when faced with conflicting prompts versus their internal memory. This will not only help to understand LLMs’ decision mechanism but also benefit real-world applications, such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG).Drawing on cognitive theory, we target the first scenario of decision-making styles where there is no superiority in the conflict and categorize LLMs’ preference into dependent, intuitive, and rational/irrational styles.Another scenario of factual robustness considers the correctness of prompt and memory in knowledge-intensive tasks, which can also distinguish if LLMs behave rationally or irrationally in the first scenario.To quantify them, we establish a complete benchmarking framework including a dataset, a robustness evaluation pipeline, and corresponding metrics. Extensive experiments with seven LLMs reveal their varying behaviors. And, with role play intervention, we can change the styles, but different models present distinct adaptivity and upper-bound. One of our key takeaways is to optimize models or the prompts according to the identified style. For instance, RAG models with high role play adaptability may dynamically adjust the interventions according to the quality of retrieval results — being dependent to better leverage informative context; and, being intuitive when external prompt is noisy.