ICICLE is an in‑context indexing framework that expands generative retrieval by supplying newly added documents as inference‑time evidence. It generates document identifiers using both parametric memory and context‑provided document‑docid pairs, employing a [COPY] routing mechanism, preference‑based calibration, and large‑context adaptation to separate context‑grounded retrieval from parametric retrieval. Experiments on MS MARCO and NQ320K demonstrate that ICICLE improves retrieval of new documents while retaining performance on previously indexed documents without retraining the model.
By Yu-Chen Den, Yung-Yu Shih, Zhi Rui Tam, Kuan-Yu Chen, Pu-Jen Cheng, Yun-Nung Chen, Eugene Yang
The paper introduces CHAP, a personalized generative retrieval framework that aligns query semantics with item representations through a hierarchical semantic alignment module and models user behavior using both discrete Semantic IDs and continuous representations. It also proposes a Residual Cascading Generation mechanism to reduce inference latency by limiting the Transformer decoder to a single pass. Experiments on multiple datasets and online A/B tests show that CHAP outperforms existing methods, demonstrating its practical value.
By Gaoming Zhang, Angqing Jiang, Jianchun Song, Kena Qi, Dayao Chen, Wei Lin, Defu Lian
arXiv:2604. 19047v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Existing QA benchmarks typically assume distinct documents with minimal overlap, yet real-world retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems operate on corpora such as financial reports, legal codes, and patents, where information is highly redundant and documents exhibit strong inter-document similarity.
By Hanjun Cho, Jay-Yoon Lee
arXiv:2602. 12187v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Search-Augmented Generative Engines (SAGE) have emerged as a new paradigm for information access, bridging web-scale retrieval with generative capabilities to deliver synthesized answers.
By Sunghwan Kim, Wooseok Jeong, Serin Kim, Sangam Lee, Dongha Lee
arXiv:2610.13810v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are now a standard source of query expansion terms but they hallucinate. They inject non existent entities and off-topic...
By Amit Kumar Jaiswal, Sagar Uprety, Prayag Tiwari
arXiv:2606. 12451v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models deployed as agents over large tool catalogs face a critical tool-retrieval bottleneck.
By Ashutosh Hathidara, Sai Shruthi Sistla, Sebastian Schreiber, Sahil Bansal
arXiv:2608.22817v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Industrial technical reports contain high-value knowledge for maintenance, troubleshooting, and product engineering, but their heterogeneous structure...
By Parsa Bakhtiari, Hassan Bashiri, Alireza Khalilipour, Masoud Nasiripour, Moharram Challenger
arXiv:2603. 26667v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) turns external documents into evidence for large language models.
By Xu Sun, Tongkai Xu, Baiheng Xie, Li Huang, Qiang Gao, Kunpeng Zhang
arXiv:2604.05087v4 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Generative large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as inference-time components in retrieval pipelines, for tasks such as query rewritin...
By Omri Uzan, Ron Polonsky, Douwe Kiela, Christopher Potts
arXiv:2606. 29706v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Telecom question answering (QA) is a challenging setting for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG): evidence is fragmented across standards, papers, encyclopedic resources, and web documents, and answers often hinge on technical tables, equations, and specialized protocol language.
By Heshan Fernando, Quan Xiao, Yan Xin, Tianyi Chen
arXiv:2606. 28365v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: RAG ingestion pipelines frequently augment search corpus index with semantic enrichment indices (e.
By Adnan Qidwai, Anand Eswaran, Sonam Mishra, Jaydeep Sen, Sachindra Joshi
The paper evaluates how robust large language models (LLMs) are when using retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG) in practical settings. It investigates whether RAG always outperforms non‑RAG approaches, whether adding more retrieved documents helps, and whether the order of documents matters, using a benchmark of 1,891 samples across five datasets and three task categories. Experiments with 11 LLMs show generally high retrieval robustness, but performance varies by task and prompting strategy, indicating that adopting RAG should be considered on a case‑by‑case basis.
By Shuyang Cao, Karthik Radhakrishnan, David Rosenberg, Steven Lu, Pengxiang Cheng, Lu Wang, Shiyue Zhang