**Open-Book QA.** Unlike closed-book QA, in open-book QA tasks, LLMs can extract useful evidence from the external knowledge base or document collections, and then answer the question based on the extracted evidence [653, 654, 655]. Typical open-book QA datasets (_e.g.,_ Natural Questions [554], OpenBookQA [566], and SQuAD [569]) have overlap with closed-book QA datasets, but they incorporate external data sources, _e.g.,_ Wikipedia. The metrics of accuracy and F1 score are widely used in open-book QA tasks for evaluation. To select relevant knowledge from external resources, LLMs are often paired with a text retriever (or even a search engine), which is trained independently or jointly with LLMs [653, 657, 81]. Also, previous work [658, 659, 660] has indicated that retrievers can assist LLMs in verifying and rectifying the reasoning path. In evaluation, existing studies mainly focus on testing how LLMs utilize the extracted knowledge to answer the question and show that the retrieved evidence can largely improve the accuracy of the generated answers, even enabling a smaller LLM to outperform \(10\times\) larger ones [653, 657]. Further, open-book QA tasks can be also employed to evaluate the recency of knowledge information. Pre-training or retrieving from outdated knowledge resources may cause LLMs to generate incorrect answers for time-sensitive questions [653].