让下一篇重要论文，不再错过。

Ask a language model whether sales tend to dip after a product recall, or whether one side effect tends to follow another after a vaccine, and it answers in a fluent sentence that reads like a finding, with no test behind it. Assertions about how events unfold across many cases fill the Web, and each is a temporal hypothesis that only a significance test over the right records can settle. The verifier must specify the null, select the test and decide which records bear on the hypothesis, and any of these choices can go wrong while the conclusion still comes out right. Yet benchmarks for language-model data analysis grade only the conclusion, with the relevant data handed over. We study the problem in health, where a wrong verdict is costly, and present STRATA, a benchmark that grades every decision on the way to a verdict: 8,735 hypotheses over the clinical timelines of vaccine adverse-event reports, with gold plans, evidence sets, p-values and verdicts derived under a released codebook and reproduced by a deterministic oracle. We also propose ART (articulate, retrieve, test), a staged paradigm that exposes each decision as an inspectable output. Extensive experiments with five model configurations show that systems fail mostly at choosing which records count, a verdict-evidence gap that accuracy alone conceals. ART closes most of this gap and brings a 31B open model to within 0.01 of the frontier models under the same paradigm; the frontier models succeed once given the codebook.

Retrieval-augmented generation commonly serves separate models for reranking and answering, duplicating model residency and passage processing. We introduce Glance, which equips the generator with a lightweight decision adapter and pointer head to score candidate passages from a shared prefill. Short relevance probes branch from the cached context, producing one score per passage without separately prefilling each query-passage pair. A single resident 9B backbone supports generation, general decisions and reranking, with approximately 0.1 GiB of additional memory per decision skill. After 39 minutes of MS MARCO fine-tuning, Glance achieves nDCG@10 of 0.741 on SciFact and 0.345 on NFCorpus, compared with 0.721 and 0.326 for bge-reranker-v2-m3. On 300 HotpotQA questions, its selected context improves answer F1 by 0.045 over cross-encoder-selected context under the same base generator (paired bootstrap 95% CI [0.014, 0.076]). In a scaling study, reranking quality keeps rising up to 200 candidates (43k tokens) scored from one shared prefill, where it exceeds the cross-encoder by 0.058 nDCG@10, and a probe-only activated adapter lets generation continue from the original passage cache. These initial results demonstrate generator-based reranking with one resident backbone; evaluation currently covers two retrieval datasets, one QA dataset and one backbone family.

The BITEM team entered both subtasks of the NTCIR-19 R2C2 task with a single agentic pipeline, in which a model searches, reads and records evidence over a movie corpus while an orchestrator holds the record and rules on what may be submitted. A claim is admitted only once an entailment cascade has checked it against the passage it cites, and an answer is released only once enough checked evidence stands behind it. Each question is run three or four times, every pass retrieving from a corpus stripped of what the earlier passes have already seen. The confidence score predicted with each answer is computed by the orchestrator from what the run leaves behind and is never asked of the model, which is offered no way to rate itself. The two retrieval runs placed 4th and 5th of 22, pooling the passes was worth 0.0709 nDCG@20, and the gain was largest on the multi-hop and post-processing-heavy questions, where the organisers rank the pooled run top of the field. Sixteen of the 25 answer runs were built on passages these two runs supplied, 12 of them submitted by other teams. HMR rewards a system whose confidence is high where it answers right and low where it answers wrong. The pipeline reached an accuracy of 0.9219, 6th of 25, while the confidence scores predicted for those answers gave an HMR of 0.4915, 13th. A few rules crafted over those same recorded signals, with no further model call and no further retrieval, raise that to an accuracy of 0.9375, 5th, and an HMR of 0.6985, 9th. Ranking on HMR alone can reward a system for answering wrongly with low confidence, so we propose accHMR, the accuracy multiplied by HMR, which reports the reward in proportion to the accuracy, and on which the revised rules would have scored 0.6549, 5th. For future work, fitting a model on the numbers the pipeline already produces, rather than writing such rules by hand, would be a real step forward.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds a language model's output in retrieved evidence, but for complex questions spanning multiple aspects of an information need, relevance-based retrieval may return redundant evidence while leaving some aspects unsupported. We propose a coverage-aware retrieval pipeline that decomposes queries into subquestions, ranks candidates with a coverage-trained bi-encoder, predicts a document\,$\times$\,subquestion coverage matrix with a cross-encoder, and selects documents by greedy maximum-marginal coverage. On TREC RAG 2024, our approach improves $α$-nDCG@10, which rewards newly covered nuggets and discounts redundant evidence, from $0.625$ to $0.702$, approaching the $0.718$ gold-nugget upper bound without sacrificing relevance. We then find that ground-truth oracle retrieval, despite substantially higher retrieval coverage, delivers no more nugget coverage to the answer than our estimated selection. This suggests that answer completeness depends not only on what evidence is retrieved, but also on how effectively the generator uses it. To address this, we introduce a \emph{grounded self-feedback loop} in which the model identifies underused evidence from its first answer and generates again without gold supervision, raising $V_{\mathrm{strict}}$, the fraction of vital reference nuggets fully supported by the answer, by $0.086$ over two passes while largely preserving faithfulness.