跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

论文库

检索计算机领域论文,按研究方向、作者或关键词筛选。

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
+0已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-15 15:59 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-14 15:09各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-14 16:20 — 2026-11-15 16:20(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:2026-11-15 15:59最近发现新增版本:2026-11-14 15:09库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-13 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。

23,348 已收录论文19,580 AI 相关6,729 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 2026-11-15 15:58(北京时间)
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2610.36910

Nothing Left Behind: Embedding Retrieval and Language Model Screening for High Recall Evidence Search

Giuliano Martinelli, Abelardo Carlos Martinez Lorenzo, Satvik Garg, Linxi Wang, Riccardo Orlando, Piriyakorn Piriyatamwong, Samuel Paul Fraiberger

原文摘要

AI systems that ground their answers from retrieved documents usually need only a few relevant passages, but applications such as systematic reviews and legal discovery need nearly all of them, because their conclusions rest on the full body of evidence. These applications have traditionally searched with curated taxonomies, which can only find what their vocabulary describes. We compare taxonomy-based retrieval with an alternative neural retrieval based on sentence embeddings and followed by language model screening in ImpactAI, an evidence synthesis application built on 7,354 randomized trials. Measured against the studies included in 29 systematic reviews, the share of studies found rises from 45% to 85%, and the screening model agrees with human annotators as well as annotators agree with each other. This gain comes at a cost in speed: at the median, retrieving and screening evidence for a query takes 77 seconds, against 6 seconds for taxonomy retrieval. The results suggest finding evidence with embeddings, organizing it with taxonomy labels, and setting how many candidates to screen according to the time available for each query.

cs.CL