REASONS: A benchmark for REtrieval and Automated citationS Of scieNtific Sentences using Public and Proprietary LLMs

Overview

• This research paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can automatically generate citations and references for sentences in a document or report.

• The researchers introduce a dataset called REASONS, which includes abstracts from the 12 most popular scientific research domains on arXiv, to evaluate the performance of state-of-the-art LLMs on this task.

• The paper explores two types of citation queries: direct queries, where the LLM is asked to provide the author names of a given research article, and indirect queries, where the LLM is asked to provide the title of a mentioned article when given a sentence from a different article.

Plain English Explanation

The ability to automatically generate citations and references for sentences in a document or report is crucial for intelligence analysts, cybersecurity professionals, news agencies, and education personnel. This research explores whether large language models, such as GPT-4 and GPT-3.5, can handle this task effectively.

The researchers created a dataset called REASONS, which includes abstracts from the 12 most popular scientific research domains on arXiv. They then tested the LLMs on two types of citation queries: direct queries, where the LLM is asked to provide the author names of a given research article, and indirect queries, where the LLM is asked to provide the title of a mentioned article when given a sentence from a different article.

The results showed that state-of-the-art LLMs, like GPT-4 and GPT-3.5, had a high "pass percentage" (PP) to minimize the "hallucination rate" (HR), meaning they were often unable to provide accurate citations. However, when the researchers augmented the LLMs with relevant metadata, the PP decreased, and the HR was reduced significantly. Additionally, the Mistral model, which uses a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) approach, demonstrated consistent and robust citation support on indirect queries, matching the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.

Overall, the study provides valuable insights into the reliability of RAG for automated citation generation tasks, as well as the challenges that LLMs still face in understanding context and providing accurate citations, especially when tested with adversarial samples.

Technical Explanation

The researchers used the REASONS dataset, which includes abstracts from the 12 most popular scientific research domains on arXiv, to evaluate the performance of state-of-the-art LLMs on two types of citation queries:

1. Direct Queries: The LLMs were asked to provide the author names of a given research article.
2. Indirect Queries: The LLMs were asked to provide the title of a mentioned article when given a sentence from a different article.

The key findings from the study include:

a) State-of-the-art LLMs, often referred to as anthropomorphic GPT-4 and GPT-3.5, had a high "pass percentage" (PP) to minimize the "hallucination rate" (HR), meaning they were often unable to provide accurate citations.

b) Augmenting the LLMs with relevant metadata lowered the PP and gave the lowest HR.

c) The Mistral model, which uses a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) approach, demonstrated consistent and robust citation support on indirect queries, matching the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. The HR across all domains and models decreased by an average of 41.93%, and the PP was reduced to 0% in most cases. The average F1 Score and BLEU were 68.09% and 57.51%, respectively.

d) Testing with adversarial samples showed that LLMs, including Mistral, struggled to understand context, but the extent of this issue was smaller in Mistral and GPT-4-Preview.

Critical Analysis

The research paper provides valuable insights into the current capabilities and limitations of LLMs in generating accurate citations and references. While the augmentation of relevant metadata and the use of RAG approaches, such as Mistral, have shown promise, the paper also highlights the challenges that LLMs face in understanding context and providing accurate citations, especially when tested with adversarial samples.

One potential limitation of the study is the use of a specific dataset, REASONS, which may not fully represent the diversity of citation styles and requirements across different domains and applications. The researchers acknowledge this and suggest that further research is needed to assess the performance of LLMs on a broader range of datasets and citation tasks.

Additionally, the paper does not delve into the potential biases or ethical implications of using LLMs for automated citation generation, which could be an important area for future research. For example, the reliance on LLMs could potentially lead to the perpetuation of existing biases in the research literature or the generation of inaccurate or misleading citations.

Overall, this research provides a valuable contribution to the understanding of LLM capabilities in the context of automated citation generation, and it encourages readers to think critically about the potential benefits and drawbacks of this technology.

Conclusion

This research paper investigates the ability of large language models (LLMs) to automatically generate citations and references for sentences in a document or report. The researchers introduce the REASONS dataset, which includes abstracts from the 12 most popular scientific research domains on arXiv, and evaluate the performance of state-of-the-art LLMs, such as GPT-4 and GPT-3.5, on both direct and indirect citation queries.

The key findings from the study suggest that while LLMs can struggle with providing accurate citations, particularly when faced with adversarial samples, the use of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) approaches, such as the Mistral model, can significantly improve the reliability and robustness of citation support. The researchers also highlight the importance of augmenting LLMs with relevant metadata to enhance their citation generation capabilities.

This research provides valuable insights for developers and practitioners working on automated citation generation systems, as well as a foundation for further exploration of the potential and limitations of LLMs in this domain. As the use of LLMs becomes more widespread, it is essential to continue studying their capabilities and limitations, with a focus on ensuring the reliability and ethical use of these technologies.