SHELF is a Python system that creates controlled benchmark data and evaluation tasks for libraries and archives, using labelled taxonomies, writing specifications, and a generation budget. It generates 62,899 model-written documents based on Library of Congress vocabularies and supports tasks such as classification, clustering, retrieval, pair classification, and instruction retrieval. The release compares various methods—including TF, TF-IDF, BM25, popular encoders, and zero-shot decoders—showing that sparse methods remain competitive on classification and that SHELF can vary bibliographic facets independently while generating new, verifiably unseen documents.
arXiv:2606. 04382v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated subject cataloging assigns controlledvocabulary headings to bibliographic records, but LCSH has no standard public benchmark.
By Kwok Leong Tang
arXiv:2608.22817v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Industrial technical reports contain high-value knowledge for maintenance, troubleshooting, and product engineering, but their heterogeneous structure...
By Parsa Bakhtiari, Hassan Bashiri, Alireza Khalilipour, Masoud Nasiripour, Moharram Challenger
arXiv:2606. 12451v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models deployed as agents over large tool catalogs face a critical tool-retrieval bottleneck.
By Ashutosh Hathidara, Sai Shruthi Sistla, Sebastian Schreiber, Sahil Bansal
arXiv:2608.21792v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Document classification in regulated industries is constrained by data residency, limited cold-start labels, scarce review capacity, and costly model-g...
By Shangxuan Tian, Yanhui Chen, Carlos Queiroz
arXiv:2606. 28367v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is routinely extended with methods meant to improve retrieval: query expansion, hierarchical and cross-document summarization, graph-based expansion, per-query routing, rank fusion, and corrective re-retrieval.
By Sadanand Singh, Allam Reddy, Manan Chopra
arXiv:2607. 04088v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LongEval-Sci evaluates scientific retrieval under collection change, where a system should be effective on the current corpus and remain usable as documents accumulate over time.
By Yingdong Yang, Haijian Wu
arXiv:2607. 16848v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Long-term memory is becoming a core component of LLM agents, but most memory benchmarks evaluate conversations or compact summaries, while research agents need to restore evidence from full scientific papers.
By Maksim Sheverev, David Finkelstein, Sergey Nikolenko
arXiv:2606. 03650v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Choosing or ranking language models for a specific application is hardest when no task-specific labeled data exists, and standard public benchmarks cannot be trusted, their items having likely leaked into pretraining, so scores reflect memorization rather than fitness.
By Alexander Apartsin, Yehudit Aperstein
arXiv:2607. 28008v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Representation engineering reads and steers capability directions in large language models, yet methods are typically evaluated on paper-specific synthetic data.
By Yanshi Li, Xueru Bai, Shuman Liu, Long Zhang
The paper introduces STAIR, a retrieval system that uses a document’s Table of Contents to guide large language models in accessing global structure, thereby reducing hallucinations in Retrieval Augmented Generation. Experiments with a fine‑tuned Differentiable Search Index show that ToC‑based retrieval yields a low hallucination rate (<0.05%) and improves Recall@1 to 82.6% on the newly released SearchTome benchmark, outperforming baselines like BM25, DPR, and Mistral. The authors also release SearchTome, a diverse dataset of 18 books across six domains, to encourage further research in ToC‑based retrieval.
By Vineet Kumar, Meghanadh Pulivarthi, vishwajeet kumar, Jaydeep Sen, Riyaz Ahmad Bhat, Sachindra Joshi
The paper evaluates the robustness of automated fact‑checking systems by cross‑benchmarking nine models—including random baselines, fine‑tuned transformers, zero‑shot LLMs, and top AVeriTeC 2025 systems—across four datasets from scientific, open‑web, and climate domains. It finds that fine‑tuned models outperform zero‑shot LLMs on ClimateCheck, that system rankings vary strongly with domain and metric, and that replacing retrieved evidence with gold annotations boosts veracity accuracy by 14–22 points, underscoring retrieval as the main bottleneck. The authors provide code, pre‑processed datasets, and results to enable reproducible research.
By Aida Usmanova, Zangir Iklassov, Markus Leippold, Ricardo Usbeck