Verifiable generation aims to let the large language model (LLM) generate text with supporting documents, which enables the user to flexibly verify the answer and makes the LLM's output more reliable. Retrieval plays a crucial role in verifiable generation. Specifically, the retrieved documents not only supplement knowledge to help the LLM generate correct answers, but also serve as supporting evidence for the user to verify the LLM's output. However, the widely used retrievers become the bottleneck of the entire pipeline and limit the overall performance. Their capabilities are usually inferior to LLMs since they often have much fewer parameters than the large language model and have not been demonstrated to scale well to the size of LLMs. If the retriever does not correctly find the supporting documents, the LLM can not generate the correct and verifiable answer, which overshadows the LLM's remarkable abilities. To address these limitations, we propose \LLatrieval (Large Language Model Verified Retrieval), where the LLM updates the retrieval result until it verifies that the retrieved documents can sufficiently support answering the question. Thus, the LLM can iteratively provide feedback to retrieval and facilitate the retrieval result to fully support verifiable generation. Experiments show that LLatrieval significantly outperforms extensive baselines and achieves state-of-the-art results.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown the potential to be integrated into human daily lives. Therefore, user preference is the most critical criterion for assessing LLMs' performance in real-world scenarios. However, existing benchmarks mainly focus on measuring models' accuracy using multi-choice questions, which limits the understanding of their capabilities in real applications. We fill this gap by proposing a comprehensive Chinese benchmark SuperCLUE, named after another popular Chinese LLM benchmark CLUE. SuperCLUE encompasses three sub-tasks: actual users' queries and ratings derived from an LLM battle platform (CArena), open-ended questions with single and multiple-turn dialogues (OPEN), and closed-ended questions with the same stems as open-ended single-turn ones (CLOSE). Our study shows that accuracy on closed-ended questions is insufficient to reflect human preferences achieved on open-ended ones. At the same time, they can complement each other to predict actual user preferences. We also demonstrate that GPT-4 is a reliable judge to automatically evaluate human preferences on open-ended questions in a Chinese context. Our benchmark will be released at https://www.CLUEbenchmarks.com