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

+2471新增论文
+2025其中 AI 相关
+163已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-10 20:36 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-10 15:22各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-09 21:59 — 2026-11-10 21:59(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:2026-11-10 20:36最近发现新增版本:2026-11-10 15:22库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-10 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。

20,643 已收录论文17,531 AI 相关5,643 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 2026-11-10 20:33(北京时间)
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2608.13410

Who Speaks Matters: Authority-Aware Multi-View RAG over Italian Parliamentary Proceedings

Mirko Tritella, Riccardo Pozzi, Matteo Palmonari

原文摘要

Parliamentary proceedings are a primary record of democratic deliberation, yet their volume and fragmentation make multi-perspective access difficult for citizens, journalists, and researchers. Applying Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) to parliamentary transcripts introduces three specific risks: dominance of the most frequent speakers, inability to weight speakers according to topical expertise, and citation misattribution in politically sensitive text. We present ParliamentRAG, a RAG system for the Italian Chamber of Deputies that addresses these risks jointly. Its core contribution is a topic-dependent authority model that estimates each speaker's authority as a function of the current query, combining interpretable components such as profession, education, and previous interventions. Given a user query, the system retrieves relevant speech chunks, identifies topic-relevant experts across parliamentary groups, and generates a summary synthesizing their perspectives, accompanied by supporting quotations. ParliamentRAG is evaluated against Google NotebookLM on 15 policy topics via a two-level protocol combining automated metrics and blind A/B human evaluation by six domain experts. The system achieves higher coverage across political groups (0.97 vs. 0.95), perfect quotation faithfulness (1.00 vs. 0.95), and stronger expert preferences on source-related dimensions, while NotebookLM remains stronger on prose-oriented dimensions.

cs.AI