arXiv:2606. 30139v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Relevance is not permission.
arXiv:2606. 12945v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Long-running LLM agents accumulate interaction histories far larger than any context window, forcing a standing decision: what to encode deeply, what to forget, and what to retrieve under a fixed memory budget.
arXiv:2608. 15877v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Search and recommendation serve a shared discovery objective but encode intent differently.
arXiv:2608.21702v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) grounds LLM generation on retrieved documents, but the standard terminal retrieval stage--dense-vector similarity,...
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.
arXiv:2608.23338v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LoRA fine-tuning is standard for adapting LLMs to reranking, but it remains unclear where in the network task-specific relevance behavior is learned...
The paper introduces the concept of LLM‑specific utility, defining it as the performance gain a target large language model (LLM) achieves when provided with a passage compared to answering without evidence. A benchmark of utilitarian passages is built for four LLMs (Qwen3‑8B/14B/32B and Llama 3.1‑8B) across three QA datasets, revealing that each model benefits most from its own tailored evidence and that evidence optimized for other models is consistently suboptimal. The authors also create SpecUBench, a benchmark for LLM‑specific utility judgment, and show that current utility‑aware retrieval methods largely capture model‑agnostic usefulness, struggling to estimate LLM‑specific utility. "whyItMatters":"The study demonstrates that retrieval‑augmented generation must consider model‑specific evidence selection to truly improve LLM performance, highlighting a gap in existing utility‑aware methods."
arXiv:2608.24079v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A shared search-and-recommendation index must score new items from features alone because search has no exploration slot. In a public log covering bo...
arXiv:2607. 27692v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Top-$K$ sparse attention reduces the cost of Softmax and value aggregation by attending to only a small subset of key--value (KV) entries.
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.
arXiv:2607. 24010v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Active RAG systems decide when to retrieve external knowledge during generation, making them a budget-sensitive case of agentic RAG and self-adaptive retrieval.
arXiv:2606. 09877v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM wiki systems compile knowledge into pre-filled KV caches for efficient inference, but assume a static corpus -- an assumption that fails whenever the underlying information landscape evolves.
arXiv:2606. 09441v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) injects LLM queries with relevant documents to improve response quality.