about
Comparing Knowledge Injection in LLMs (arxiv.org)
3 points by jonbaer on Feb 6, 2024 | hide | past | pdf | discuss on HN

In plain words: They tested two ways to teach a chatbot new facts: retraining it on documents, or looking up the right documents when answering. Looking things up worked better every time, while retraining barely taught new facts unless the same fact appeared in many different wordings.

Abstract · Fine-Tuning or Retrieval? Comparing Knowledge Injection in LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) encapsulate a vast amount of factual information within their pre-trained weights, as evidenced by their ability to answer diverse questions across different domains. However, this knowledge is inherently limited, relying heavily on the characteristics of the training data. Consequently, using external datasets to incorporate new information or refine the capabilities of LLMs on previously seen information poses a significant challenge. In this study, we compare two common approaches: unsupervised fine-tuning and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). We evaluate both approaches on a variety of knowledge-intensive tasks across different topics. Our findings reveal that while unsupervised fine-tuning offers some improvement, RAG consistently outperforms it, both for existing knowledge encountered during training and entirely new knowledge. Moreover, we find that LLMs struggle to learn new factual information through unsupervised fine-tuning, and that exposing them to numerous variations of the same fact during training could alleviate this problem.

Oded Ovadia, Menachem Brief, Moshik Mishaeli, Oren Elisha
arXiv:2312.05934 · cs.AI, cs.CL, cs.LG · submitted Dec 10, 2023 · updated Jan 30, 2024
abstract · pdf · html

add comment on HN
Also discussed: Feb 2024 (2 points, 1 comment) · Dec 2023 (1 point, 0 comments)