# Evaluating the Effectiveness of Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models in Scientific Document Reasoning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.04348 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.04348/

## Key facts

- Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Knowledge- and tool-augmented reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 13 of its 16 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Nov 2023.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Knowledge- and tool-augmented reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/knowledge-and-tool-augmented-reasoning/)
- Retrieval-augmented generation / [RAG robustness and adaptive retrieval](https://mlsanity.com/rag/rag-robustness-and-adaptive-retrieval/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10683/) (2019)
- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.04906/) (2020)
- [The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.00027/) (2020)
- [REALM: Retrieval-Augmented Language Model Pre-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.08909/) (2020)
- [Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.04426/) (2021)
- [Unsupervised Dense Information Retrieval with Contrastive Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.09118/) (2021)
- [Leveraging Passage Retrieval with Generative Models for Open Domain Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.01282/) (2020)
- [When Not to Trust Language Models: Investigating Effectiveness of Parametric and Non-Parametric Memories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10511/) (2022)
- [Atlas: Few-shot Learning with Retrieval Augmented Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.03299/) (2022)
- [Active Retrieval Augmented Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.06983/) (2023)
- [Augmented Language Models: a Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.07842/) (2023)
- [SciRepEval: A Multi-Format Benchmark for Scientific Document Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.13308/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Toward Reliable Scientific Hypothesis Generation: Evaluating Truthfulness and Hallucination in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.14599/) (2025)
- [Empirical evaluation of Uncertainty Quantification in Retrieval-Augmented Language Models for Science](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09358/) (2023)
- [WeQA: A Benchmark for Retrieval Augmented Generation in Wind Energy Domain](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.11800/) (2024)
- [PaperTrail: A Claim-Evidence Interface for Grounding Provenance in LLM-based Scholarly Q&A](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.21045/) (2026)
- [Cross-Disciplinary Knowledge Retrieval and Synthesis: A Compound AI Architecture for Scientific Discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.18298/) (2025)
- [An Expert Schema for Evaluating Large Language Model Errors in Scholarly Question-Answering Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.21059/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Despite the dramatic progress in Large Language Model (LLM) development, LLMs often provide seemingly plausible but not factual information, often referred to as hallucinations. Retrieval-augmented LLMs provide a non-parametric approach to solve these issues by retrieving relevant information from external data sources and augment the training process. These models help to trace evidence from an externally provided knowledge base allowing the model predictions to be better interpreted and verified. In this work, we critically evaluate these models in their ability to perform in scientific document reasoning tasks. To this end, we tuned multiple such model variants with science-focused instructions and evaluated them on a scientific document reasoning benchmark for the usefulness of the retrieved document passages. Our findings suggest that models justify predictions in science tasks with fabricated evidence and leveraging scientific corpus as pretraining data does not alleviate the risk of evidence fabrication.