← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.16425 · v1
RMIT-ADM+S at TREC RAG 2026: Research Agents, Retriever Ablations, and Open-Weight Replication
首次提交 2026-11-12 15:34
版本更新 2026-11-12 15:34
雷达观测 2026-11-13 14:15
摘要
We describe the RMIT-ADM+S team's participation in the TREC 2026 Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) track using the ClimbMix corpus. We submitted seven research-agent runs using proprietary OpenAI and open-weight models, exploring different retrieval strategies, writer models, and agent workflows. Pre-submission ablations identified writer selection and adjacent-chunk expansion as the main factors affecting answer quality. In the official NIST evaluation, six of seven runs exceeded the track median across all three rubric/nugget collections. Our best-performing run, brief-hybrid, achieved the highest all-item coverage among our submissions and tied the track maximum (0.892) for Batch-1 vital coverage. Human side-by-side preferences differed across evaluation batches: the open-weight owa-glm5 led Batch 1 despite lower automated coverage, while sol-research-first led Batch 2. These findings highlight differences between automated coverage measures and human preferences, as well as the potential of lower-cost open-weight models for research-agent systems.
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。
v1 · 2026-11-12 15:34 · 最新观测版本
RMIT-ADM+S at TREC RAG 2026: Research Agents, Retriever Ablations, and Open-Weight Replication
We describe the RMIT-ADM+S team's participation in the TREC 2026 Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) track using the ClimbMix corpus. We submitted seven research-agent runs using proprietary OpenAI and open-weight models, exploring different retrieval strategies, writer models, and agent workflows. Pre-submission ablations identified writer selection and adjacent-chunk expansion as the main factors affecting answer quality. In the official NIST evaluation, six of seven runs exceeded the track median across all three rubric/nugget collections. Our best-performing run, brief-hybrid, achieved the highest all-item coverage among our submissions and tied the track maximum (0.892) for Batch-1 vital coverage. Human side-by-side preferences differed across evaluation batches: the open-weight owa-glm5 led Batch 1 despite lower automated coverage, while sol-research-first led Batch 2. These findings highlight differences between automated coverage measures and human preferences, as well as the potential of lower-cost open-weight models for research-agent systems.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗