← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2610.36910 · v1
Nothing Left Behind: Finding Evidence from a Large Randomized Evaluation Corpus
首次提交 2026-10-27 17:40
版本更新 2026-10-27 17:40
雷达观测 2026-10-29 00:35
摘要
Many AI systems need to find every relevant items in a large collection and then organize what they found. The standard way to do this is to tag each item with labels from a curated vocabulary and search on those labels. Those labels are useful for organizing results, but searching on them misses items that do not fit a label and returns too much when labels are broad. We compare this approach with an embedding-based approach: find candidates by meaning using text embeddings, then have a language model keep only the relevant ones. In a corpus of 7,354 randomized trials, label search found 45% of the evidence a systematic review would include, while the new approach found 92%, at a cost per query that rises with search depth. These results support a two-stage architecture that combines broad candidate retrieval with query-specific evidence filtering.
作者备注：7 pages, 3 figures
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v2 · 2026-10-28 17:40 · 最新观测版本
Nothing Left Behind: Embedding Retrieval and Language Model Screening for High Recall Evidence Search
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.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗v1 · 2026-10-27 17:40
Nothing Left Behind: Finding Evidence from a Large Randomized Evaluation Corpus
Many AI systems need to find every relevant items in a large collection and then organize what they found. The standard way to do this is to tag each item with labels from a curated vocabulary and search on those labels. Those labels are useful for organizing results, but searching on them misses items that do not fit a label and returns too much when labels are broad. We compare this approach with an embedding-based approach: find candidates by meaning using text embeddings, then have a language model keep only the relevant ones. In a corpus of 7,354 randomized trials, label search found 45% of the evidence a systematic review would include, while the new approach found 92%, at a cost per query that rises with search depth. These results support a two-stage architecture that combines broad candidate retrieval with query-specific evidence filtering.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗