跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+1已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-08 17:39 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-08 06:02各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-07 18:36 — 2026-11-08 18:36(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-08 17:39最近发现新增版本:2026-11-08 06:02库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-06 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

17,100 已收录论文14,661 AI 相关4,057 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-08 17:37(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.04343

Do Retrieval Ranking Models Capture Event Order? A Study of Timeline-Constrained Retrieval

Alon Eirew, Lidan Avisar, Kfir Bar, Ido Dagan

原文摘要

Semantic retrieval models aim to match documents to a query's "meaning", yet it remains unclear whether they successfully encode temporal relations between events in their ranking mechanisms. We investigate this question by studying timeline-constrained document retrieval, where a query is an ordered sequence of natural-language event statements while a relevant document should match those events in a compatible temporal progression. We then test whether widely used dense retrievers and neural rerankers capture such constraints, and whether explicitly preserving temporal order improves ranking, using a controlled setting over a novel focused evaluation collection. Experiments show that state-of-the-art semantic retrievers and rerankers provide only limited improvements over lexical retrieval, suggesting that their semantic matching capabilities do not reliably capture temporal constraints. We then compare a timeline-aware method with both semantic matching and standard rerankers and find that it yields substantial improvements. This demonstrates that considering temporal order can provide a strong ranking signal in this setting, suggesting future research on improving temporal modeling in semantic retrievers.

cs.IR