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.
arXiv:2608. 09393v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We identify and quantify temporal misgrounding: the systematic retrieval and citation of the currently in-force version of a legal article when the applicable version is an earlier or future one.
arXiv:2608. 18752v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Statutory retrieval is necessary for citation-grounded legal question answering, but remains underexplored for Greek.
arXiv:2608. 02112v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Embedding benchmarks measure standalone model quality, but they do not establish whether a low-cost retriever contributes complementary ranking information once lexical and transformer-based retrieval are already combined.
arXiv:2610.27652v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Practitioners building training corpora with a pipeline of language models keep a preprocessing or refinement (post-process) stage when switching it...
SciRerankBench is a benchmark designed to evaluate rerankers in retrieval‑augmented large language models (RAG‑LLMs) for scientific literature question answering. It covers five scientific subjects and introduces three types of question‑context‑answer pairs—Noisy Contexts, Semantically Similar but Logically Irrelevant Contexts, and Counterfactual Contexts—to test noise resilience, relevance disambiguation, and factual consistency. The study evaluates 13 popular rerankers across five LLM families, offering detailed insights into their strengths and limitations.
arXiv:2608. 03860v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We introduce SciRet, a compute-aware empirical study of retrieval-augmented generation for scientific question answering over CORD-19.
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.
arXiv:2509.00141v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Statutory corpora and judicial decisions are growing faster than legal professionals can read them, while individual judgments often exceed t...
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.
arXiv:2611. 03196v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Dh\={a}r\={a} Bench is a retrieval benchmark for Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS), with 325 questions in 12 categories and 60,121 text chunks from 15 source groups.
The paper investigates how conversational Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) benchmarks that rely on relevance judgments to determine context sufficiency can be misleading. By re‑running official baselines on the RETECO track and evaluating with both large‑language‑model judges and a blind audit, the authors show that stronger retrievers produce a higher proportion of contexts lacking gold documents yet still containing the answer, leading to a sharp drop in shortcut precision from 0.68 to 0.10. The study demonstrates that many false misses arise from hard negatives, gold content from other turns, or neighboring chunks, and that using retrieval scores alone as a sufficiency detector can underestimate answerability by up to 0.19 in AUROC.
The paper presents a controlled comparison of six retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) strategies for scientific question answering on a large arXiv corpus. All pipelines use the same LLM generator and evaluation protocol, differing only in retrieval design—ranging from classic dense retrieval to late‑interaction methods like ColBERTv2. The authors also release a synthetic question dataset and code to enable reproducible, large‑scale evaluation of RAG trade‑offs.