arXiv Computation and Language

Every Clause Counts: Instruction-Following Reranking by Multiplying Small, Answerable Questions

arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 26

System One models Are Not Better Rerankers

arXiv:2610.32318v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: System One models, or decision models, answer a question about an input with a calibrated probability instead of generated text. Within weeks of the fi...

By Michael Dinzinger, Kanishka Ghosh Dastidar, Michael Granitzer
arXiv AI
5d ago

Predicting What Answer Engines Cite: Open Decision Models, Rerankers and a Distilled 4B Student on Ten Engines under Controlled Retrieval

The paper introduces a new scorer for generative answer engines that ranks candidate pages by the likelihood of being cited. It evaluates pretrained rerankers, a hosted typed decision model (Jev), eight open decision models, and a distilled 4B student on GEO‑Bench queries answered by ten engines. The distilled student, fine‑tuned with low‑rank adapters, achieves comparable performance to larger models and the authors release the model, benchmark, predictions, and code.

By Elisha Bajemon, Andre-Louis Rochet
arXiv AI
Aug 24

Clarify-Then-Search: A Clarification Benchmark for Deep Search with End-to-End Nugget Restoration

Clarify-Then-Search is a benchmark that tests whether large language models can ask clarification questions to improve the usefulness of deep search results. It uses 518 real-world query pairs from Baidu, where each intent query is paired with an underspecified version. The evaluation involves a clarifier asking up to three questions, a user answerer providing only explicit information, and a rewriter generating a new query that is then searched; performance is measured by a weighted nugget-recall score.

By Deqiang Huang, Jingbo Zhou, Xinjiang Lu, Tong Xu, Hua Wu, Enhong Chen
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 28

Keeping the Index Open: The Recommendation-Side Cost of Shared Search and Recommendation

The paper investigates the trade‑off of using a shared search‑and‑recommendation index that scores new items purely from features, thereby keeping the index open to unseen items. Experiments on public logs show that a feature‑based tower can match warm‑item performance (Recall@20 0.9595 vs 0.9510) and a lexical baseline, while a full‑catalog check is inconclusive. The study also quantifies the cost of this openness on recommendation quality across several baselines, revealing that exact full‑softmax training improves recall but is impractical at catalog scale.

By Theodore Rogers, Joe Standerfer, Dmitrii Timoshenko, Haoxue Li, Zuhaib Akhtar, Soyoung Yang
arXiv AI
Aug 13

CAR: Query-Guided Confidence-Aware Reranking for Retrieval-Augmented Generation

arXiv:2605. 04495v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) relies on evidence ranking to determine what information is exposed to the generator, yet existing retrieval and reranking methods primarily estimate query--document relevance.

By Zhipeng Song, Yizhi Zhou, Xiangyu Kong, Jiulong Jiao, Xuezhou Ye, Chunqi Gao, Xueqing Shi, Yu Wang, Yuhang Zhou, Heng Qi
Hugging Face Trending Papers
6d ago

Glance: The Generator Is Its Own Reranker

Glance is a retrieval‑augmented generation approach that eliminates the need for separate reranker models by adding a lightweight decision adapter and pointer head to a single 9B backbone. It scores candidate passages directly from a shared prefill, requiring only about 0.1 GiB of extra memory per decision skill. In fine‑tuning on MS MARCO, Glance outperforms the bge‑reranker‑v2‑m3 on SciFact and NFCorpus, and improves answer F1 on HotpotQA by 0.045, while scaling to 200 candidates it surpasses cross‑encoder reranking by 0.058 nDCG@10.

arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 1

Annotated Surrogate Retrieval for Polish Statutory Law

The paper introduces three retrieval methods for Polish statutory law that use language‑model annotations attached to articles as surrogates. The methods—ASCR, ASCR‑H, and DTF—vary in cost and quality, with ASCR‑H achieving the highest rank‑one accuracy on bar exam questions, while DTF offers competitive performance with lower latency and cost. Extensive evaluation against 14 baselines on 300 exam questions demonstrates significant improvements in head‑rank accuracy and discusses limitations such as coverage asymmetry and negative results for lemmatisation, pseudo‑relevance feedback, and query rewriting.

By Orkun Yi\u{g}it Cengiz