Continual knowledge graph embedding updates entity and relation representations as a graph grows. Existing methods primarily address catastrophic forgetting, but entity admission also changes the cand...
arXiv:2606. 26511v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) gives agents access to accumulated knowledge, but has no model of time.
By Neeraj Yadav
The paper argues that evaluating continual knowledge‑updating methods solely at a final checkpoint and a single adapter rank can be misleading. By fixing a periodic hierarchy and comparing it to cumulative replay on a 24‑month Wikidata stream, the authors show that the apparent best method changes depending on the evaluation month, replay LoRA rank, and query formulation. They recommend reporting performance trajectories and capacity sweeps, and only declaring a robust winner when the ranking remains stable across the evaluation region.
By Heejin Choi
The paper investigates how scaling hard‑negative training for rerankers can improve industrial legal retrieval systems once embedding recall saturates. On Chinese legal benchmarks, a pipeline that first uses embedding‑mined negatives and then self‑mined negatives yields the best trade‑off, and a 4B‑parameter Stage2 reranker outperforms the native 4B model on STARD, CSAID, and internal datasets. The study demonstrates that evaluating retrieval and reranking stages separately is beneficial for optimizing industrial retrieval performance.
By Yunhan Li, Mingjie Xie, Zeyang Shi, Gengshen Wu, Min Yang
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
The paper examines LLM-based recommendation rerankers that are often evaluated under an oracle protocol, which guarantees the ground-truth item is present in the scored set. Across Amazon datasets, this protocol overestimates realistic NDCG@10 by 92–95% because realistic retrieval only covers 2–19% of relevant items at K=100, creating a recall ceiling that limits any closed-candidate reranker's top‑k NDCG. The authors find that various optimisation strategies—including prompt engineering, model scaling, sequential models, supervised neural rerankers, LoRA fine‑tuning, hybrid retrieval, score‑aware prompting, and LLM+CF fusion—do not significantly improve over a collaborative‑filtering baseline under realistic retrieval, and they propose a Recall‑Aware Evaluation Protocol (RAEP) to better assess rerankers in low‑recall regimes.
By Zhaohui Wang