arXiv:2608. 16309v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Static pruning is widely used to accelerate sparse neural retrieval, yet existing studies each validate their conclusions within a single custom pipeline, leaving it unclear which findings transfer to modern engines with different index organizations and dynamic pruning mechanisms.
CoHyDE is an iterative co‑training framework that jointly trains a dense encoder and an LLM rewriter for tool retrieval from large API catalogs. The encoder is fine‑tuned with InfoNCE on catalog‑style hypothetical descriptions generated by the rewriter, while the rewriter is preference‑aligned via DPO against the encoder’s retrieval scores. On a 10k‑tool subset of ToolBench, three rounds of CoHyDE outperform the best single‑component baseline by 2.5 pp NDCG@5 on standard queries and 6.3 pp on vague queries, with the largest gains on the hardest vague tier.
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.
The paper reports that existing knowledge‑editing benchmarks cannot evaluate the scope decision—whether a stored edit applies to a query—because they are counterfactual and lack negative examples. Using the gradient‑free editor INLAY, the authors exhaustively test every router action on 1,689 queries across three datasets and find that an oracle router achieves no gain over a static policy, and abstention never wins. The authors attribute this to the structural design of the benchmarks and demonstrate that adding a missing negative condition restores some headroom and allows abstention to win.
Every memory-based knowledge editor in the SERAC lineage depends on a scope decision: given a query, does a stored edit apply? We report that current knowledge-editing benchmarks cannot measure this d...
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.
arXiv:2606. 29733v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Organizations that cannot send data to a cloud API increasingly ask: how good is Text-to-SQL if the model must run on-premises on open weights, and which popular accuracy "recipes" are worth their compute?
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:2608. 09254v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM analytics agents are evaluated on SQL syntax accuracy, but production failures look different: questions with two valid business definitions, questions the warehouse cannot answer, deprecated columns after a schema change, and queries that execute successfully while returning the wrong business number.
arXiv:2606. 05633v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-augmented QA pipelines often route retrieved passages through an LLM \emph{rewriter} before a smaller reader, lifting F1 by tens of points on multi-hop benchmarks; this gain is typically credited to improved evidence quality.
arXiv:2608.21610v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation relies mostly on flat, fixed-granularity indexes: documents are cut into uniform chunks and retrieved by similarity, dis...
arXiv:2607. 11942v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: KV-cache compression methods are predominantly evaluated with the query appended to the context before compression -- a query-aware protocol.