DeepNote: Note-Centric Deep Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) mitigates factual errors and hallucinations in Large Language Models (LLMs) for question-answering (QA) by incorporating external knowledge. However, existing adaptive RAG methods rely on LLMs to predict retrieval timing and directly use retrieved information for generation, often failing to reflect real information needs and fully leverage retrieved knowledge. We develop DeepNote, an adaptive RAG framework that achieves in-depth and robust exploration of knowledge sources through note-centric adaptive retrieval. DeepNote employs notes as carriers for refining and accumulating knowledge. During in-depth exploration, it uses these notes to determine retrieval timing, formulate retrieval queries, and iteratively assess knowledge growth, ultimately leveraging the best note for answer generation. Extensive experiments and analyses demonstrate that DeepNote significantly outperforms all baselines (+10.2% to +20.1%) and exhibits the ability to gather knowledge with both high density and quality. Additionally, DPO further improves the performance of DeepNote. The code and data are available at https://github.com/thunlp/DeepNote.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".