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

+1032新增论文
+792其中 AI 相关
+128已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-12 06:59 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-12 06:37各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-11 10:01 — 2026-11-12 10:01(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:2026-11-12 06:59最近发现新增版本:2026-11-12 06:37库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-11 08:00

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。

21,675 已收录论文18,323 AI 相关6,056 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 2026-11-12 06:57(北京时间)
首次观测 · 记录 #1ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-srw.5ACL Anthology · ACL 2026

Why Large Language Models can Secretly Outperform Embedding Similarity in Information Retrieval

Matei Benescu, Ivo Pascal de Jong

原文摘要

With the emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs), new methods in Information Retrieval are available in which relevance is estimated directly through language understanding and reasoning, instead of embedding similarity. We argue that similarity is a short-sighted interpretation of relevance, and that LLM-Based Relevance Judgment Systems (LLM-RJS) (with reasoning) have potential to outperform Neural Embedding Retrieval Systems (NERS) by overcoming this limitation. Using the TREC-DL 2019 passage retrieval dataset, we compare various LLM-RJS with NERS, but observe no noticeable improvement. Subsequently, we analyze the impact of reasoning by comparing LLM-RJS with and without reasoning. We find that human annotations also suffer from short-sightedness, and that false-positives in the reasoning LLM-RJS are primarily mistakes in annotations due to short-sightedness. We conclude that LLM-RJS do have the ability to address the short-sightedness limitation in NERS, but that this cannot be evaluated with standard annotated relevance datasets.

cs.CL

Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 4: Student Research Workshop) · 2026 · 正式发表